denied on September 12, 1996, then he had to exhaust the remedies under domestic law in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention. Concerning this remedy, on December 5, 2000 the State alleged that the petitioner had not exhausted the federal remedy provided for in Law 48, whereby the highest court in the land would decide the matter.25 37. As this process has unfolded, the State has consistently maintained that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted. The second time the petitioner exhausted the remedy of release, the parties both concluded that the appeal was denied for late filing; in other words, it was denied because it did not fulfill the procedural requirement that remedies be filed within the time periods stipulated in the Argentine laws applicable in the case. The IACHR believes that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted in the sense understood in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, when a remedy has been declared inadmissible because it did not satisfy the procedural filing requirements that the domestic law stipulates.26 Moreover, the case does not reveal any particular circumstances that would acquit the petitioner of the obligation to file his petitions in timely fashion, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Therefore, the petitioner did not exhaust this second petition for release in accordance with the provisions of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 38. In the case of the first, third and fourth remedies the petitioner filed, the State alleged that he did not file the federal remedy provided in Law 48, whereby the highest court of the land would decide the matter. The IACHR notes that the State does not indicate the specific provision of Law 48 it is invoking; however, the IACHR believes that the State is alluding to the federal remedy to which Articles 14 and 15 of that law refer, which allows access to the Supreme Court in very precise, exceptional circumstances. 27 In earlier cases, the Commission has acknowledged that in certain circumstances, extraordinary appeals can be adequate remedies that must be exhausted.28 However, whether or not these are the provisions that the State seeks to invoke, the Commission notes that the State has not explained how they would be adequate and effective remedies to redress the violation alleged by the petitioner. In effect, the Commission is reiterating that the State invoking a failure to exhaust domestic remedies bears the burden of proving the adequacy and effectiveness of the remedies that it believes 25 The State did not attach copies of the court rulings on this request for release. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Nº 6/98, case 10.382, Ernesto Máximo Rodríguez, Argentina, decision of February 21, 1998, par. 62. There, the Commission stated that: “The facts in the case indicate that the petitioner opted for a procedural route that, as the Supreme Court ruled, made a review of his case impossible. In this particular case, the Commission cannot question this judgment: if the highest court of the land has stated that an apparent lack of procedural expertise on the part of the petitioner made it impossible for him to secure a review of the penalty imposed on him, it is not for the Commission to try to determine or assess whether the Court was mistaken. The rules that govern procedural law reflect methological criteria intended to ensure the orderly use of judicial actions and to make the work of the courts more efficient and effective.” (underlining added by the Commission). 27 Article 14 of Law 48 reads as follows: “Once a case is with the provincial courts it shall remain there through sentencing and conclusion; final rulings handed down by provincial superior courts may only be appealed to the Supreme Court in the following cases: 1) when in the course of litigation the validity of a treaty, a law passed by Congress or an authority exercised at the federal level has been questioned and the decision has been to rule the treaty, law or authority in question invalid; 2) when the validity of a provincial law, decree or authority has been challenged as contrary to the National Constitution, treaties or laws of Congress, and the decision has upheld the validity of the provincial law or authority; 3) when the sense of some clause in the Constitution, treaty or act of Congress, or a commission performed in the Nation’s name has been challenged and the decision goes against the validity of the title, right, privilege or exemption that is based on that clause and is the subject of litigation.” Article 15 ejusdem states that: “When the remedy of appeal authorized under the preceding article is filed, the complaint should be based on the provisions of that article so that the arguments are based on the court records and go, both directly and indirectly to the issues of the validity of the articles of the Constitution, laws, treaties or commissions being challenged. It shall be understood that the interpretation or application of the civil, penal, commercial and mining codes by the provincial courts shall not be used as grounds for the complaint solely by virtue of the fact that they are acts of Congress under the provisions of subparagraph 11, Article 67 (now subparagraph 12, Article 75) of the Constitution.” 28 In Report Nº 104/99, Case 11.400, Eolo Margaroli y Josefina Ghiringhelli de Margaroli, Argentina, decision of September 27, 1999, paragraph 53, the Inter-American Commission dismissed the State’s argument that local remedies remained to be exhausted, because the State had failed to show that those remedies were adequate and effective. There, it held that: “regarding the exhaustion of the extraordinary unconstitutionality remedy referred to by the State, the Commission recognizes that in some cases unconstitutionality remedies, which are in principle extraordinary, offer appropriate and effective remedies for human rights violations. In the case at hand, however, the State has neither claimed nor shown that a decision on the unconstitutionality of Article 29 of Law 21.499 and Ordinance 43.529/89 would have in any event resolved the alleged violations described by the petitioners.” 26 12