14 force at the date of presentation of the petition (current Article 28(f)) established the possibility of a petition being processed before it even if no specific reference was made to the Article presumed to have been violated.29 Thus, in its admissibility reports, the Commission determines the possible violations of the rights embodied in the American Convention based on the facts denounced by the petitioner and on the legal considerations it deems pertinent. 49. In this case the Commission decided to include in its Admissibility Report No. 18/06 and also in its examination of the merits, the alleged violation of the right to freedom of association, “under the iura novit curia principle and because the alleged interceptions and recordings attempted to affect the exercise of the rights of the social organizations.”30 Once the possible violation of Article 16 of the Convention had been included in the said Admissibility Report during the proceedings before the Commission, the State commented on the merits of the supposed violation of the right to freedom of association, but failed to comment on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in that regard, or on the lack of opportunity to comment on it during the admissibility stage.31 Brazil put forward this argument for the first time in its brief answering the application, even though it had been aware of this fact since April 21, 2006, when it had been notified of Admissibility Report No. 18/06.32 Consequently, in accordance with the facts, which the State was aware of, and the circumstances of the case, the Court concludes that this preliminary objection must be rejected. C.4) Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to Article 11 of the American Convention – civil actions 50. The State indicated that “the individuals who considered they had been prejudiced by the interception of the telephone lines of the entities COANA and ADECON filed [civil actions before the domestic courts] for reparation of non-pecuniary damages almost four years after the petition had been presented to the [Commission].” The alleged victims “preferred to resort directly to the international court without granting the State the possibility of deciding on the admissibility of [the said] request in the domestic sphere. Therefore, the failure to use the Brazilian courts in relation to the violation of Article 11 [of the Convention] is evident, which constitutes […] failure to observe the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies.” 51. As this Court has already stated, the Commission presented its observations on the preliminary objection concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in general, claiming, among other matters, that it duly considered the arguments of the parties, in light of the elements in the case file and therefore “a new discussion on this matter is not in order.” 29 According to Article 32(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in force on the date of presentation of the petition, complaints submitted to the Commission must include: “the State the petitioner considers responsible, by act or omission, for the violation of any of the human right recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, in the case of States Parties, even if no specific reference is made to the Article(s) alleged to have been violated.” The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights approved at its 49th period of sessions, during session 660, held on April 8, 1980, and modified at its 64th period of sessions, during session 840, held on March 7, 1985, in its 70th period of sessions, during session 938 held on June 29, 1987; in its 90th period of sessions, during session 1282, held on September 21, 1995; at its 92nd period of special sessions, during session 1311 held on May 3, 1996; at its 96th period of special sessions, during session 1354 held on April 25, 1997, and in its 97th period of sessions, during session 1366 held on October 15, 1997. 30 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 18/06 of March 2, 2006, supra note 26, folio 51. 31 Cf. Brief of November 30, 2006 with the State’s arguments on the merits of case 12,353 (file of attachments to the application, tome II, appendix 3, folios 712 to 714). 32 Cf. Note of the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of April 19, 2006 (file of attachments to the application, tome II, appendix 3, folio 810).