8 b) Decision of the Court 19. The Court shall assess, according to its jurisprudence, whether, in the present case, the formal and material conditions have been met in order to admit the preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. As for the formal requirements, considering that this objection is a defense available to the State, the Court shall first analyze the purely procedural issues, such as the procedural moment of the objection (whether it was raised in a timely fashion); the facts on which the objection is based and whether the interested party has shown that the decision on admissibility was based on erroneous information or on other considerations which implicate a compromise in the State’s right to defense. Regarding the material requirements, the Court shall verify whether the domestic remedies have been filed and exhausted according to the generally recognized principles of international law; in particular, whether the State raising this objection has specified the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, and also the State must demonstrate that such remedies were at the victim’s disposal and were adequate, suitable, and effective. All this, considering that this is a question of the admissibility of a petition before the Inter-American system, the conditions of this rule need to be verified insofar as it is alleged, even though the analysis of the formal requisites takes precedence over the material conditions, and in certain occasions, the latter are related to the merits of the case.9 20. It is reiterated jurisprudence of this Court,10 that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be submitted in a timely manner from the procedural standpoint, which is at the stage of admissibility of the proceeding before the Commission; otherwise, the State shall have missed the possibility to submit such defense before this Tribunal. 21. It appears within the case file before this Court that, during the processing of the admissibility before the Commission, the State was neither clear nor explicit in asserting its objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, for the State did not make reference to the detailed list of remedies that it mentioned for the first time in its answer to the application (supra para. 15). Regarding this aspect, the State itself admitted that in its first communication before the Commission on March 6, 2006, it only invoked the rule of Article 46(1) of the Convention “without providing a complete list of the available remedies which had not been exhausted in this particular case.” Likewise, the State acknowledged that “[e]ven though the information provided [in said brief and in the hearing of March 13, 2006, before the Commission] was not a complete list of the remedies available at the time of the events, [it was] in fact sufficient for the Commission to learn about the existence of judicial remedies neither utilized, nor exhausted by the petitioner.” 22. As for the arguments about the alleged violation of the right to defense of the State, the Court has held that the Inter-American Commission has autonomy and independence in the exercise of its mandate as established by the American Convention11 and, particularly, in the exercise of its inherent powers in the 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 9, para. 46, 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. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 88; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 19, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 18. 11 Cf. Control of Legality in the Practice of Authorities of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (Arts. 41 & 44 to 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights) Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of