principle of complementarity of the inter-American system. It asked that the preliminary objection be granted and, consequently, that the Court “decline to consider such injuries." 35. The representative noted that the State’s initial communication in the proceeding before the Commission was intended to “open a space for dialogue,” and did not entail a formal objection when it pointed to the 2018 reparations laws. It added that the procedures provided for in those laws are “essentially optional for the victims [and] are not suitable […] to addressing and compensating for the multiple and serious damage caused.” 36. The Commission indicated that in its Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 56/19, it analyzed the issue and concluded that, since these were “allegations of serious human rights violations, the domestic remedies that should be taken into account for purposes of admissibility [were] those related to the criminal investigation and possible punishment of the persons responsible.” It indicated that, because the alleged victims had opted for the judicial route instead of an administrative procedure, it had not discussed the need to exhaust this administrative remedy. It asked that the preliminary objection be dismissed. C.2. Considerations of the Court 37. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention stipulates that, in order to determine that a petition or communication lodged before the Commission under Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention is admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 26 38. The Court reiterates that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed during the admissibility stage of the procedure before the Commission. 27 During this admissibility process, the State must describe clearly to the Commission the remedies that, in its view, have not yet been exhausted. Additionally, the State’s arguments undergirding the preliminary objection before the Commission during the admissibility stage must be the same as the ones made before the Court. 28 39. In this regard, the Court notes that, through the communication of November 14, 2017, the Commission reported that it had decided to analyze “the admissibility and the merits of the case jointly at the appropriate time." 29 In response, in a communication dated September 20, 2018, and prior to the issuance of Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 56/19, the State asked that the petition be declared inadmissible because, among other issues, “the laws on reparation [were] the appropriate mechanisms for a satisfactory response to pecuniary claims,” and a report from the Office for Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism, describing the mechanisms of Laws No. 24,411 and 25,914. 30 On this basis, the Court notes that Argentina made its arguments regarding the mechanisms offered by the two laws cited in a timely manner, without citing Law No. 26,913, as the appropriate means of satisfying certain claims made by the petitioners, based on which it asked that the petition not be admitted. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, par. 85; and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, par. 20. 27 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, par. 88, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, par. 21. 28 Cf. Case of Furlán and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, par. 29, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, par. 21. 29 Cf. Communication of November 14, 2017 sent by the Commission (evidence file, volume II, procedure before the Commission, folios 2388 and 2389). 30 Cf. Communication of September 20, 2018, presented by the State (evidence file, volume II, procedure before the Commission, folios 2287 to 2306). The communication included the report of July 11, 2018, submitted by the Office of Human Rights and Cultural Pluralism. 26 12