judgment has been incorrect due to a violation of due process, the Court is unable to address this claim as a preliminary objection, because it will need to consider the merits of the matter and determine whether or not this conventional right was violated.” The representatives brief with observations on the preliminary objection was time-barred; accordingly, the full Court decided that it was inadmissible and would not be forwarded to the State and the Commission (supra para. 7). B. Considerations of the Court 16. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that, admission by the Commission of a petition or communication shall be subject to domestic remedies having been filed and exhausted, pursuant to the generally recognized principles of international law.8 In this regard, the Court has maintained that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the property procedural moment; that is, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission.9 17. The file of the procedure before the Commission in this case reveals that the State submitted the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the appropriate moment during the admissibility stage.10 In addition, the Court notes that the State’s arguments to support its preliminary objection are that: (i) when the initial petition was submitted, the domestic remedies had not been exhausted, and (ii) there had not been an unwarranted delay that justified an exemption to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 18. On the first point, the Court notes that the initial petition was lodged before the Commission on March 14, 2007. The Commission issued the Admissibility Report on July 24, 2008, and, in this case, it considered applicable Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, which establishes the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies when “there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” In this regard, the Court considers that, by requiring that this exhaustion has occurred for a petition or communication to be admitted by the Commission, Article 46 of the American Convention should be interpreted in the sense that it requires the exhaustion of remedies when a decision is taken on the admissibility of the petition and not when it is submitted. 11 19. Regarding the second point, the Court considers that the decision on the alleged unwarranted delay established in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention calls for an assessment of elements that are closely linked to the merits of the dispute. The Court has established that “regardless of whether the State has defined a claim as a preliminary objection, if it is necessary to first consider the merits of the case when analyzing the arguments, it ceases to be preliminary.”12 Therefore, the Court refers to its considerations concerning the principle of the reasonable time in the chapter on the merits where it will determine whether there had Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 01, para. 85, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 25. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 85, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 39. 9 Cf. The Venezuelan State’s brief of February 28, 2008, with observations on the initial petition (evidence file, folio 325 to 327). 10 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 25, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, para. 41. 11 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of Gorigoitia v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 382, para. 19. 12 -7-