7 In this way, the Judgment would be inconsistent with the reinforcing, complementary or subsidiary nature of the inter-American jurisdiction in relation to the domestic jurisdiction established in the second preambular paragraph of the Convention transcribed above because, instead, it would be substituting the latter. In short, since accepting what is affirmed in the Judgment and transcribed above creates a high level of legal uncertainty with regard to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, I am unable to share the decision to reject the preliminary objection filed by the State in this regard, particularly when it is evident that this requirement was not met. 2. Moment at which the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should be complied with As mentioned above, in these proceedings, the dispute relates to when the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should be met. And, as also indicated, there is no ruling, at least directly and legally, on this point in the Judgment. In other words, it did not rule between the State’s claim that this requirement must be met before the pertinent petition is lodged19 and the Commission’s claim that this should occur before its decision on the admissibility of the petition.20 To the contrary, as grounds for the decision taken on the obligation of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Judgment states that “[r]egarding the lodging of the initial petition before the Commission, it has been verified that the alleged victim sent this document on August 22, 2003, and that, at that date, the final judgment in the criminal proceedings against him had not yet been delivered, but was handed down on November 5, 2003,” that “[i]n addition, although the initial petition was received on August 22, 2003, it was not until April 18, 2005, that the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the alleged victim’s petition to the State,” that “[o]n July 18, 2005, the State argued that the petition had been lodged prior to the final decision of the High Court of Justice,” and that “[l]astly, the Admissibility Report was issued on March 9, 2007.”21 Nevertheless, it may be understood from the above that, since the Judgment does not include what was expressly and directly indicated by the Commission, it would appear that its position was accepted; this was that it is at the moment at which the Commission decides on the admissibility of the pertinent petition or communication lodged before it that the obligation of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should be complied with. In this case, this interpretation would not be in keeping with either the words of the above-mentioned Articles 46(1)(a) and 47(1)(a) of the Convention or their spirit. Indeed, regarding the text of the norms, it should be indicated, first, that although it is true that the Convention does not expressly and directly indicate that, at the time of its presentation, the respective petition or communication must comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, it is also true that it does not indicate, either tacitly or indirectly, that it is sufficient that this requirement is complied with when the Commission rules on its admissibility for the said petition or communication to be admitted. Doubtless, if this had been the intention, it would have been expressly stated in the Convention, but this did not happen. 19 Para. 11. 20 Para. 12. 21 Para. 17.