6 20. As regards the timely presentation of this defense, the Tribunal remarks that the State pointed out the following in its writ of September 13, 2005, before the Commission issued its admissibility report on March 15, 2006: The First Military Tribunal for the Execution of Judgments, a court competent in this case, proceeding according to the rules that govern such Tribunal, visits the corresponding prisons as frequently as set forth by the law to hear first hand any particular problems that the prisoners may have, giving the prisoners an opportunity to have a personal meeting with the Judge and inform the Judge of whatever they may deem necessary[.] This being the case, notice is given that petitioner Francisco Usón has not made any statements to said tribunal. 21. Although the State stated in a timely fashion from the procedural standpoint that Mr. Usón Ramírez had not, as a prisoner, indicated “any particular problems” to the First Military Tribunal to Execute Judgments, the State does not indicate clearly how such alleged remedy was adequate, suitable and effective. Furthermore, the writ of September 13, 2005, submitted during the process before the Commission does not make reference to the lack of exhaustion of the extraordinary remedy to review the judgment to which the State makes reference for the first time in its answer to the application. Likewise, it does not result that in the writ of September 13, 2005, the State pointed out, as it has done in the answer to the application before this Court, the other remedies available or whether such remedies were adequate, suitable, and effective. 22. The Court points out that, as it has done before,12 the State is trying to make the Tribunal change its constant jurisprudence where it states that if the objection of not exhausting domestic remedies is not filed in a timely manner the possibility of so doing is missed. To that end, the Tribunal reiterates that the interpretation of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for over 20 years is in agreement with International Law13 and that according to its jurisprudence14 and international jurisprudence,15 it is not the Court’s or the Commission’s task to identify ex officio the domestic remedies to be exhausted; on the contrary, it is the State which shall point out the domestic remedies to be exhausted and their effectiveness. It is also not up to the international bodies to overcome the lack of precision in the States allegations.16 23. Therefore, the lack of specificity in a timely procedural manner before the Commission, by the State, regarding the domestic remedies that had not allegedly been submitted, as well as the lack of grounds about their availability, suitability, and effectiveness, make this argument presented before this Court extemporaneous. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 88; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 9, para. 20, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, paras. 20 to 23. 13 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 12, para. 22. 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 88; Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 12, para. 23, and Case of Perozo et al.v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 42. 15 Cf. ECHR, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, § 26, Series A no. 35, para. 26; ECHR, Foti et al., supra note 10, § 48, and ECHR, De Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v. the Netherlands, judgment of 22 May 1984, § 36, Series A no. 77. 16 Cf. ECHR, Bozano v. France, judgment of 18 December 1986, § 46, Series A no. 111. See also Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 12, para. 23.