[…] does not provide the basis for the Commission to review said decision,” and it argued the same arguments reported in the answer to the application (supra para. 5). The Commission, in its Report on Admissibility and Merits of March 17, 2009, stated that “there is a controversy between the parties regarding the retroactivity of the declarations of unconstitutionality […] and the subsequent scope of the resolution of the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal which establishes the unconstitutionality of the Executive Decrees that suspend and discharge José Alfredo Mejía ldrovo from the Armed Forces. The Commission understands that the controversy depends on the reading of the mentioned decision and that its clarification corresponds, in principle, to the jurisdiction of said court. Consequently, the claim of the petitioners regarding the alleged right to restitution of Mr. Mejía ldrovo to active service with a promotion to the rank of General, is outside of the framework of its jurisdiction.” The Commission noted that, nevertheless, “pursuant to the general principle of international legislation iura novit curia, international bodies have the power, as well as the obligation, to apply all of the relevant legal provisions, including those not raised by the parties. In light of this principle, the Commission considered that the facts alleged by the petitioners that are related to the failure to properly provide legal notice of the decision of the request for clarification filed by the Armed Forces to the President of the Constitutional Tribunal may involve violations to Article 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees) of the American Convention.” This was reiterated by the Commission in its observations of August 19, 2010, to the preliminary objections in the proceeding before the Court. In said communication, it noted that “it considered the objection filed by the State to be unfounded, given that the State’s arguments assume an analysis of the merits of the application, which cannot thereby constitute a preliminary objection,” reason for which the Commission requested that the Court dismiss the objection as inadmissible. 22. Taking the foregoing into consideration, in the present case, the InterAmerican Court must determine if the actions of the Council of General Officers and the Constitutional Tribunal constitute a violation of the State’s international obligations. As a consequence, the arguments that make reference to said objection are directly related to the merits of the controversy, and as such, this will be analyzed in the pertinent chapter of this Judgment. 23. Due to the foregoing, the Court considers that it must dismiss said preliminary objection as inadmissible. B. Non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Arguments of the parties 24. In its answer to the application, the State contested the admissibility of the case, given that, allegedly, the domestic remedies have still not been exhausted. Specifically, the State argued that “the alleged victim must have, timely, presented a civil [tort] action for damages against the State before the competent judges in Ecuador, for them to determine the damage caused to [C]olonel Mejía [Idrovo] and to establish the amount for compensation, in a judicial proceeding of a civil nature within the ordinary [civil] forum.” Moreover, the State expressed that on April 22, 2009, “the citizen Mejía Idrovo filed an action for noncompliance before the Constitutional Court,” wherein he requested “compliance with the Resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal of March 12, 2002.” Pursuant to the State, the action for damages and the action for noncompliance “could be appropriate” and efficient 8