problems and, furthermore, he did not have the financial resources to hire private legal services to denounce the acts of which he was a victim while he was deprived of liberty. In addition, SIPDH requested that the Court follow its usual practice, namely that it is not necessary in all cases to have exhausted domestic remedies at the time the petition is lodged before the Commission, but that the remedies must have been exhausted at the time the Admissibility Report is decided. In this regard, it explained that these matters were raised with the administrative authorities of the respective prison, the authorities responsible for the execution of sentences, the Ombudsman’s Office, and through amparo appeals and criminal complaints, and that almost all of the authorities failed to respond to these demands. B.2. Considerations of the Court 39. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Commission, pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. In this regard, the Court has held that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed at the appropriate procedural moment, that is, during the admissibility proceedings before the Commission. When alleging failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is up to the State to specify which remedies have not yet been exhausted, and to demonstrate that they were available, adequate, suitable and effective. 26 In this regard, the Court has stated that it is not for the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio which domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted. Therefore, it is not for the international bodies to remedy the lack of precision in the State’s allegations. 27 40. Before examining the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies, this Court notes that it is not disputed by the parties that the State filed this objection before the Commission in a timely manner. 41. Furthermore, the Court notes that the State’s arguments in raising this objection focused on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the time each of the petitions was lodged with the Commission and then forwarded to the State. In this regard, the Court has already established that Article 46 of the Convention should be interpreted to mean that exhaustion of domestic remedies is required at the time of the decision on the admissibility of the petition and not at the time of its submission. 28 The Commission must have the updated, necessary and sufficient information to carry out this examination of admissibility, which must be submitted by the parties to the proceeding. 29 In the instant case, the eight petitions of the alleged victims were submitted between March 2004 and November 2006, and the admissibility process lasted until July 22, 2011, the date on which the Commission issued its Admissibility Report. 42. Thus, the Court notes that the State filed this objection in relation to two specific issues that will be analyzed in the following order: a) the criminal cases against the alleged victims 26 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, Para. 88, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 25. 27 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 24. 28 Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 25. 29 Cf. Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 42. 17