14 not able or intended to prevent the Court from hearing the merits of the case. Indeed even if, hypothetically, the Court resolved the assertion affirmatively, it would in no way affect the Court’s competence to hear the merits of the case. Based on the above, this allegation is rejected. * * * 47. Second, the State alleged that the Commission should have concluded the initial processing of the petition based on the State’s response to the precautionary measures requested and after learning that the alleged victim did not present his candidacy during the registration stage of the electoral process. As soon as the Commission knew that the alleged victim had not submitted any document in the time allotted to the valid reception of requests for the registration of candidates and established his absolute and voluntary absence from the electoral process, the Commission should have decided de oficio that the petition was inadmissible or out of order. 48. The Commission argued that: (i) its application did not refer to the non-registration of Mr. Castañeda Gutman in the electoral process, but rather “to the inexistence in the domestic sphere of a simple and effective remedy to claim the constitutionality of political rights”; (ii) in its report responding to the order to adopt precautionary measures, the State merely indicated the provisions of domestic law that prevented the registration of the candidacy of the beneficiary of the measures, even though the Court has established that international obligations cannot be modified or left unfulfilled by invoking provisions of domestic law; and (iii) it continued to process the petition owing to the need to examine whether the inexistence in the domestic sphere of a remedy to question the constitutionality of the legislation and authoritarian acts that affect political rights entailed violations of the rights protected by the Convention, in the understanding that, as the Court has established, “[…] the international responsibility of the State arises immediately with the unlawful international act attributed to it; [consequently, a subsequent action] implemented under domestic law, does not prevent either the Commission or the Court from hearing a case that has been initiated under the American Convention.” Based on the above, the Commission requested that this preliminary objection be rejected. 49. The representatives did not add any observations to those submitted by the Commission. 50. Regarding the arguments based on the failure of Mr. Castañeda Gutman to postulate his candidacy during the electoral process, the Court observes that they are the principal purpose of another issue raised as a preliminary objection by the State, on which the Court has already ruled (supra para. 26). Based on the above, this argument is rejected. * * * 51. Third, the State indicated that the Commission should have ruled on the admissibility of the petition; but, without clear and sufficient grounds, it ordered the transfer of the issues of admissibility to the consideration of the petition’s merits. Among other arguments, the State maintained that: (i) in the same document in which the Commission sent the State the alleged victim’s observations on the State’s document, it informed the State of its decision to open a case and defer its treatment of admissibility until the debate and decision on merits, without giving the State the opportunity to offer its point of view or additional elements, and leaving the State in an evident situation of defenselessness; (ii) Article 37(3)