6 7. That this irregularity is alleged by the Government of Peru on September 24, 1990, in a report appearing on pages 168 to 172 of the main case file before the Commission, as follows: [. . .] 1. The first observation that the Government of Peru must make with regard to the resolution in questions relates to point 1 of same, which states: ‘To admit the petition bringing the instant case.’ It should be pointed out here that, according to the text of that resolution, the complaint bears the date August 1, 1987 (even so, there is room for doubt as to whether the text of the resolution contains a material error, since information provided would indicate that the complaint was not brought until September 1). The Commission admitted the petition on the assumption that domestic remedies had been exhausted. As a matter of fact, on December 5, 1986, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees decided on appeal the petition of habeas corpus that had been initially submitted to the Trial Judge for Lima on July 16, 1986. The decision of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees was published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on January 14, 1987, thus concluding the exhaustion of domestic remedies. When the petition was lodged, assuming it was on August 1, 1987, more than six months had elapsed since the exhaustion of domestic remedies, that being the period fixed in paragraph (b) of Article 46 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights governing the jurisdiction of the Commission. Consequently, the Government of Peru considers that the Commission, motu propio (sic), should have declared the petition inadmissible pursuant to Article 47, paragraph (a), of the Convention on Human Rights, which provides that the Commission shall proceed thus when: ‘Any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met.’ NOW, THEREFORE: I vote that the Court hold: The preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the First. Commission interposed by the Government of Peru to be well-founded, given that the petition or complaint was admitted after the expiration of the period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention; and Second. That the Neira Alegría et al. case be dismissed.