20. The foregoing means that these remedies must not only exist formally, but they must also be adequate and effective, as a result of the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 19 21. This Court has maintained consistently that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural stage. 20 In the instant case, since the Commission ruled on the admissibility of the petition in Report No. 4/96, which it adopted on March 7, 1996, the appropriate occasion for the State to file this objection was before the said report was issued. 22. When arguing the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State must, at the same time, indicate the remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the interpretation it has given to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for more than 20 years is in keeping with international law 21 and that, according to its own case law 22 and to international case law, 23 it is not incumbent on the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted. 23. In this case, when filing the preliminary objection before the Court, the State referred to five communications that it had sent to the Inter-American Commission during the proceedings before that organ and asserted that, in them, it had argued the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court has verified that only the above-mentioned communication of September 19, 1994, was sent to the Commission prior to the adoption of Admissibility Report No. 4/96 on March 7, 1996, and its notification to the parties. 24 In this communication, the State indicated that “all the country’s agencies are searching for Dr. González” and that “all the necessary remedies will be exhausted for the prompt and satisfactory solution of this case which has dismayed the Government and the whole community.” 24. The Court observes that, in the said Admissibility Report, the Commission stated that “[t]he assertions [made] by the Government of the Dominican Republic [in its brief of September 19, 1994,] appear to argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” In addition, the Commission indicated that the State had failed to respond specifically” to the reiterated requests that it indicate the remedies that must be exhausted and the failure to exhaust them. The Court has verified that the Dominican Republic did not identify the domestic remedies that had to be exhausted and their effectiveness, at the opportune procedural occasion. In general, none the arguments submitted by the State in the answer to the application to found the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies were filed 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra note 17, para. 63, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 28. 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra note 17, para. 88, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 29. 21 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 22, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 22. 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 17, para. 88; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 21, para. 22. 23 Cf. European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”), Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, para. 26, Series A No. 35; ECHR, Foti et al. v. Italia, 10 December 1982, para. 48, Series A No. 56, and ECHR, De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. The Netherlands, 22 May 1984, para. 36, Series A No. 77. 24 This report was notified to the State on March 13, 1996 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 3, folios 171 and 175). 10