The report also addresses the petitioners’ December 2003 brief responding to the State’s comments, but this document is not in the case files that were forwarded to the State, and it can thus be assumed that the State did not see it until after the Admissibility Report had been issued. It was this brief that first made mention of the fact that “the processes being pursued cannot be considered effective remedies because of the lack of impartiality and objectivity.” It should similarly be emphasized that the Commission acts on its own initiative in the Admissibility Report and raises a point that was not argued in the petition, when it applies “the exceptions stipulated in Article 46(2)(a) and (c) of the American Convention, such that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not required in the instant case with respect to the investigation and prosecution of the members of the ‘Chavín de Huántar’ military command who took part in the events under consideration or regarding the agents of the State who took part in covering up the facts after the alleged extrajudicial executions were committed.” The report also says, “the Commission may assume that the State has not tacitly waived its right to claim the [rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies], unless the objection was promptly and explicitly posited in the early stages of the procedure before the Commission, and the mere submission of information on progress in the domestic judicial processes is not equivalent to lodging an express objection based on the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies.” The Commission’s report thus dismisses the State’s position, saying that it should have begun earlier in the process to raise its objection on failure to exhaust domestic remedies; in so doing, it disregards the State’s unmistakable and direct affirmations in the petition to the effect that “because a criminal process is still pending in the domestic jurisdiction and therefore the relevant prior remedy has not been exhausted, it ... requests ... that [the] petition [be found] inadmissible pursuant to Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.” The report also says, however, that the trial of Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Roberto Huaman Ascurra, Nicolás Hermosa Ríos and Jesús Zamudio Aliaga “could be found to constitute failure to exhaust domestic remedies” and moreover, it goes on to mention the “investigation of Juan Francisco Diandera Ottone, Martín Solari de la Fuente and Herbert Danilo Angeles Villanueva”, about which it concludes that there is no “prospect of effectiveness of the domestic remedy for the purposes of the requirement stipulated in Article 46(2) of the American Convention.” Thus, the Admissibility Report does not allow the objection claimed by the State as having been submitted expressly and on time; it does recognize, at least regarding one of the trials underway in the regular criminal courts, that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted; and as for the other processes, it holds that they could not be considered suitable remedies under the terms of Article 46(2), although again, this article was not cited in the petition. III. CONSIDERATIONS ON THE JUDGMENT Taking into account the above outline concerning the regulatory framework surrounding the rule on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and the facts of the instant case, the first observation that needs to be made is that the judgment asserts a confirmed fact. It says, 14