Commission and the Court, the State had failed to comply with its obligation to specify the remedies to be exhausted and to prove that they were appropriate and effective, and (iii) considering that numerous actions had been taken that had failed to provide an answer, and agreements had been signed that had not been implemented, the Commission considered that, as decided in its Admissibility Report, the exception established in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention that “the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights that have allegedly been violated” was applicable in this case. 24. The representatives indicated their understanding that the failure to exhaust domestic remedies was the only preliminary objection filed by the State. They indicated that the State had contradicted itself by arguing that domestic remedies had not been exhausted because, in the section on the right to judicial protection in its answering brief, it had acknowledged the actions taken by the community before the National Agrarian Institute and the Public Prosecution Service. They also pointed out that the State had failed to indicate the suitable and effective remedies that were available to resolve the case at the domestic level. Finally, they argued that there was no adequate domestic legislation to protect and defend the rights of indigenous peoples. B. Considerations of the Court 25. In this chapter, the Court will analyze the two preliminary objections filed by the State in its answering brief that relate to: (1) the failure to exhaust domestic remedies to free the territory of the Punta Piedra community of encumbrances, and (2) the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in connection with the death of Félix Ordoñez Suazo. 26. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that admission by the Commission of a petition lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention is subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 13 However, this supposes that such remedies must exist formally and also that they must be adequate and effective owing to the exceptions set out in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 14 27. The Court recalls that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived in the State’s interests, because it seeks to exempt it from responding before an international organ for acts that are attributed to it before having had the chance to rectify them by its own means. 15 However, for a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be admissible, the State must not only specify Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 27. 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63; and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C N. 282, para. 30. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 61, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 43. 13 11