stated that despite this fact, neither the alleged victim nor his relatives or representatives made use of it. 13 22. Third, the State mentioned in its answering brief that it had noted to the Commission, with respect to “the arguments concerning failures in the administration of justice,” that Mr. Cortez “had at his disposal the action for failures in the administration of justice and the action for damages.” 23. Regarding the criminal trial, the Commission considered the State's argument groundless, asserting that the time for assessing whether domestic remedies have been exhausted is not during the initial petition but when the admissibility of the case is decided. It also argued that in its Admissibility Report, it had concluded that the exhaustion of the remedies of habeas corpus and amparo of liberty was not enforceable. It stated that the former was not effective because it was not judicial and its processing before an administrative authority produced obstacles. Regarding the latter remedy, it stated that (a) neither Mr. Cortez nor anyone acting on his behalf truly had the ability to file it while he was in solitary confinement, and (b) it would have been handled in a military criminal venue, which did not have jurisdiction. B.2 Considerations of the Court 24. The Court notes that Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that for determining the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Commission under the terms of either Article 44 or Article 45 of the Convention, remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. For a preliminary objection on the basis of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be admissible, the State must: (a) have presented that objection during the admissibility stage of the case before the Commission; (b) argue before the Court for the same remedies that it argued for before the Commission; 14 and (c) demonstrate that the remedies put forward are “suitable and effective.” 15 Moreover, it is necessary to be able to do a preliminary analysis of the objection, which does not happen if it concerns a matter that is inseparable from the merits of the dispute. 16 in July of 1997 but also in January of that year, given the State’s declarations and the nature of the facts, it is understood that the State’s argument refers to the deprivation of liberty that began in July of 1997. In fact, Ecuador maintained in its answering brief that the “event of January of 1997 [...] was not a detention, but an appearance proceeding of Mr. Cort[ez].” 13 Regarding the “amparo liberty,” the State explained that it was regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure in force from 1983–2000 and that it was used “as a supplement to the Code of Military Criminal Procedure” under the following terms: “Art. 458: Anyone detained for violating the established rules of this Code can file a petition for release before the judge above the one who ordered their detention [...] If the deprivation of liberty was unlawful, the judge shall order the immediate release of the detainee.” The officials and employees responsible for custody of the detainee shall follow the order [...].” Ecuador explained that “[t]he criminal adjective law established that the remedy was to be filed before the judge above the one who had ordered the deprivation of liberty and that the request was to be presented in writing. The higher judge would then order the immediate presentation of the detainee, hear their statement, and make a record of it. The judge could even request any information deemed necessary for making a determination and ensuring the lawfulness of the judgment; come to a decision within 48 hours; and, if the detention is found illegitimate, order the immediate release of the detainee.” 14 Cf. Case of Brewer Carías v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 26, 2014. Series C No. 278, para. 77. In the same vein, Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 23, and Case of Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, and reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 25. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 28. 16 Cf. In the same vein, Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 95, and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other Municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 27. 8