-8the application for amparo was ineffective owing to the composition and functional dependence of the Judicial Service Council. 18. The representatives argued that the filing of the objection regarding the action before the contentious administrative jurisdiction was time-barred. Regarding the application for amparo, they indicated that it is exceptional in nature so that “it does not necessarily have to be exhausted.” In addition, they emphasized that, “in its answer to the initial petition, the State itself had accepted that [based on article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council,] there was no remedy whatsoever against the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice.” Lastly, they indicated that the application for amparo was also illusory, because the State Judiciary did not have the necessary independence to decide this. B. Considerations of the Court 19. The Convention attributes to the Court full jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to a case that it is examining, including those of a procedural nature on which the possibility of it exercising its jurisdiction is based.6 Under Article 61(2) of the Convention, in the exercise of that power, the Court is not bound by a prior ruling of the Commission, but is authorized to render judgment freely, based on its own assessment.7 20. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention stipulates that, admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.8 The rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived in the interest of the State, because it seeks to exempt it from responding before an international organ for acts of which it is accused before having had the opportunity to remedy them by its own means.9 However, the Court has maintained that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed at the proper procedural moment; that is, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission.10 21. When arguing the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State must, at the same time, specify the domestic remedies that have yet to be exhausted and prove that those remedies are available and adequate, appropriate and effective.11 Thus, it is not the task of either the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted. The Court underlines that it is not incumbent on the international organs to rectify any lack of precision in the 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 29, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 20. 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 29. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 85, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 27. 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 27. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 27. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 31.