The material it forwards to the State, according to Article 28(8) of these Rules of Procedure, should indeed include information on “any steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so as provided in Article 31 of these Rules of Procedure”. Article 30(3), cited above, goes on so say, “[t]he State shall submit its response within three months from the date the request is transmitted.” This response should of course include the preliminary objection on failure to exhaust domestic remedies if the State so wishes. This is in fact why Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of the Rules of Procedure stipulates, “[w]hen the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.” In other words, if the petitioner should argue in the petition that he or she is unable to demonstrate that domestic remedies have been exhausted, the State may challenge the claim and in this event must demonstrate that the available remedies have not been exhausted, especially if this not clearly evident in the case file. The Court’s own words need to be understood in terms of just such an event, to wit, that a “State that claims failure to exhaust domestic remedies needs to spell out the particular domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted and demonstrate that they were in fact available and were appropriate, fitting and effective.”26 It naturally bears recalling, although this is not expressly addressed in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, that when the petitioner states in the petition that he or she has previously exhausted domestic remedies and has thus fully complied with the requirements of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, the State may then lodge an objection claiming that this has not occurred. It is thus clear that compliance with the rule on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so, must be spelled out in the petition, or otherwise, the State would not be able to respond to it; once again, this demonstrates that the requirement needs to have been met previously, before lodging the petition whose relevant parts are forwarded to the State for response. The stipulations of Article 30(5) and (6) of the Commission’s Rules of the Rules of Procedure point in this very direction. More specifically, the article says, “(p)rior to deciding upon the admissibility of the petition, the Commission may invite the parties to submit additional observations, either in writing or in a hearing, as provided for in Chapter V of these Rules of Procedure” and “(t)he considerations on or challenges to the admissibility of the petition shall be submitted as from the time that the relevant parts of the petition are forwarded to the State and prior to the Commission’s decision on admissibility.” This does not leave room for doubt about the fact that these additional comments and any considerations or challenges 26 Idem. 9