said petition, which – I repeat- must meet all the requirements stipulated, including information on any steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies prior to its presentation. For this reason, Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure states that: “When the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the information contained in the petition.” 24 However, it is only logical that in the event - not expressly contemplated in the Commission's Rules of Procedure - that the petitioner indicates in his petition that he has previously exhausted domestic remedies, i.e. that he has complied with the provisions of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, the State may raise the argument or objection that this has not occurred. Consequently, it is undeniable that this response by the State must necessarily relate to the petition that was “lodged” before the Commission, and that it is at that moment, and not later, that the litigation or the adversarial proceedings are instituted with respect to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. It is evident, then, that compliance with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or the impossibility of such compliance, must be indicated in the petition; otherwise, the State would not be able to provide a response on the matter. In other words, only if the petition indicates that this rule has been complied with, or that it is impossible to do so, may the State contest this claim and, as established by the Court, “specify which domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted, and prove that these remedies were available, adequate, suitable and effective.” 25 All the foregoing shows, once again, that this requirement must be met previously, i.e. before drawing up the petition, the pertinent portions of which are forwarded to the State precisely so that it may respond to them. On the other hand, if the petition makes no reference whatsoever to the requirement in question, it is only incumbent upon the State to point out that the petition does not comply with it. In such a situation, imposing on the State the obligation to demonstrate the existence of adequate, suitable and effective remedies that have not been exhausted, would mean substituting the petitioner for the State as the holder of the obligation to previously exhaust the domestic remedies as provided for in the Convention and in the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and requiring the State to assume the burden of someone else’s obligation. And, for the same reason, it is at that moment that the domestic remedies must have been exhausted or that the petitioner should have indicated the impossibility of doing so. To affirm that those remedies could be exhausted after the petition has been “lodged” and, consequently, notified to the State, would affect the essential procedural balance and would 24 Idem in relation to Article 31(3) of the current Rules of Procedure. 25 Para. 39. 11