The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is provided for in Article 46 of the Convention in the following terms: “1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; b) that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; c) that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement; and d) that, in the case of Article 44, the petition contains the name, nationality, profession, domicile, and signature of the person or persons or of the legal representative of the entity lodging the petition. 2. The provisions of paragraphs 1.a and 1.b of this article shall not be applicable when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” Article 47(a) and (b) add that: “The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: a) any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met; b) that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; 1. Ancillary or complementary nature of the rule As a first observation, it should be noted that the aforementioned rule corresponds to the third paragraph of the Preamble of the Convention, which refers to “international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.” This means that the inter-American jurisdiction does not substitute or replace the domestic jurisdiction, but merely supports or complements it. In other words, it contributes or helps the latter to reestablish, as soon as possible, the effectiveness of the human rights that are alleged to have been violated. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that the State is bound by the Convention 15 and, therefore, not only has the international obligation to 15 Arts. of the Convention: 1(1) “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 4