With regard to the operative paragraphs of the judgment that accept the objection of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies filed by Costa Rica, 9 it should be noted that the judgment follows the criterion that compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is enforceable at the time the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 10 decides on the admissibility of the petition that has been submitted to it, and not at the time of its presentation. 11 This opinion, on the contrary, holds that the aforementioned requirement must be complied with at the time when the respective petition is lodged before the Commission; consequently, its admissibility will depend on whether said requirement was met at that time. It is for this reason that this document does not argue that the preliminary objection filed by the State should have been rejected or that the reasons given by the representatives of the alleged victims in this regard should have been accepted. It merely argues that, by proceeding as it did, it prevented the trial from discussing whether or not said requirement had been met at the time the corresponding petitions were filed. For a better understanding of the arguments put forward in this document, it is appropriate to reiterate what has been stated on other occasions, 12 and to refer, first of all, to the provisions of the corresponding rules of the American Convention 13 on the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies; then to the provisions of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure on the same issue; 14 and thirdly, to the consequences - particularly in the present case - of accepting the approach followed hitherto by the Court. A. Conventional norms 9 Hereinafter, the State. 10 Hereinafter, the Commission. Paragraph 41 of the judgment. Hereinafter, “para.” or “paras.” shall be understood to mean “paragraph” or “paragraphs”, respectively, of the judgment. 11 Separate Concurring Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Yarce et al. v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2016. Series C No. 325; Concurring Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316; Concurring Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244. 12 13 Hereinafter, the Convention. 14 Hereinafter, the Rules of Procedure. 3