14 Convention, it is the drafting of the report that is conditional on the failure to file a case with the Court and not the filing of a case that is conditional on the report not having been prepared or published. If, therefore, the Commission were to draft or publish the report mentioned in Article 51 after having filed the application with the Court, it could be said that the Commission was misapplying the provisions of the Convention. Such action could affect the juridical value of the report but would not affect the admissibility of the application because the wording of the Convention in no way conditions such filing on failure to publish the report required under Article 51. 77. It follows that, although the requirements of Article 50 and 51 have not been fully complied with, this has in no way impaired the rights of the Government and the case should therefore not be ruled inadmissible on those grounds. 78. Likewise, the reasoning developed from paragraph 31 onwards leads to the conclusion that the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedures set out in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention. XII 79. Moreover, the Government has challenged the admissibility of the petition before the Commission on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been previously exhausted. 80. Although proceedings before the Commission began on October 7, 1981, the Government did not raise this issue until November 18, 1983 when, in requesting reconsideration of Resolution 30/83, it asserted that "the domestic jurisdiction of my country has not been exhausted" because "a Writ of "Exhibición Personal" (Habeas Corpus) . . . is still pending." By note of May 30, 1984, in response to the Government's request for reconsideration, the Commission, in turn, asked "whether the domestic legal remedies had been exhausted." Finally, Resolution 22/86 pointed out that "there has been, moreover, an unjustified delay in the administration of justice in this case." 81. In its submissions to the Court, the Government declared that "the petitioner has not proved to the Commission that domestic remedies have been previously exhausted or pursued." The Government reiterated this position at the hearing, where it added that, under Honduran law, the writ of exhibición personal does not exhaust domestic remedies. 82. Both in its submissions of March 20, 1987, and at the hearing, the Commission argued that domestic remedies had been exhausted, because those pursued had been unsuccessful. Even if this argument were not accepted, the Commission asserted that the exhaustion of domestic remedies was not required because there were no effective judicial remedies to forced disappearances in Honduras in the period in which the events occurred. The Commission believes that the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46 (2) of the Convention were applicable because during that period there was no due process of law, the petitioner was denied access to such remedies, and there was an unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment. 83. The Commission maintains that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be decided jointly with the merits of this case, rather than in the preliminary phase. Its position is based on two considerations. First, the Commission alleges that this matter is inseparably tied to the merits, since the lack of due process and of effective domestic remedies in the Honduran judiciary during the period when the events occurred is proof of a government practice supportive of the forced disappearance of persons, the case before the Court being but one concrete example of that practice. The Commission also argues that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is a requirement for the admissibility of petitions presented to the Commission, but not a prerequisite