the State's claim that it was necessary to file a federal constitutional motion, the representatives argued that this remedy, in addition to being extraordinary, is “exceptional, discretionary and [is] not subject to a legal term for its resolution.” They added that it is unreasonable to require the exhaustion of a remedy with those characteristics “after almost 10 years of processing in the lower courts” and given that this legal action “was aimed at obtaining comprehensive reparation for a disabled child.” 22. Regarding the cases invoked in which the Supreme Court of Argentina declared the unconstitutionality of Law 23.982, the representatives stated that the extraordinary constitutional motion is not “the only legal instrument available to achieve a review of a law.” They clarified that, on the contrary, any judge “has the capacity to declare unconstitutional a national law regardless of his level of jurisdiction.” They added that this was accompanied by the “unacceptable and unlawful omission of failing to require the intervention of the Public Defender of Minors and Disabled Persons[, who] would have performed a key role [...] [and] even promoted the declaration of the unconstitutionality of Law 23.982.” They further indicated that “for an extraordinary remedy to be admitted by the Supreme Court the party had the obligation to have questioned the constitutionality of the law at each stage of the proceedings.” Considerations of the Court 23. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that in determining the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Commission in conformity with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary for the domestic remedies to have been pursued and exhausted, according to the generally accepted principles of International Law.14 The Court recalls that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed for the benefit of the State, since it seeks to exempt it from the need to respond before an international body for acts attributed to it before having the opportunity to resolve them through its own remedies. 15 This not only means that such remedies must formally exist, but that they must also be adequate and effective, as contemplated in the provisions of Article 46(2) of the Convention.16 24. Furthermore, this Court has consistently held that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed at the appropriate procedural stage,17 that is, during the admissibility of the proceedings before the Commission.18 25. In this regard, when claiming failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State must indicate, at the proper procedural moment, which remedies must be exhausted and their effectiveness. The Court reiterates that the interpretation it has given for over two decades 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Order of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1 para. 85, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 19. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Order of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4 para. 61, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228 para. 27. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 63, and Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 20. 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, para. 88, and Case of González Medina, para. 21. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, para. 88, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 29. 9