9 already been exhausted, given that by then two rulings had been adopted as res judicata in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores. Furthermore, they alleged that at the time when the Admissibility Report was adopted there had also been an unreasonable delay in the execution of the judicial decisions, which constituted an exception to this rule under Article 46(2) (c) of the American Convention.” A.2 Considerations of the Court 25. According to Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, for a petition or communication lodged before the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under 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.10 The Court recalls that this rule was conceived in the interests of the State to allow it to resolve a dispute in the domestic sphere before being faced with international proceedings.11 This means that not only must these remedies exist formally, but they must also be adequate and effective, as a result of the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention.12 26. Similarly, this Court has consistently held that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity, that is, during the admissibility proceeding before the Commission,13 after which the principle of procedural preclusion operates.14 In alleging a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State must specify which remedies have not yet been exhausted, and demonstrate that these were available, adequate, appropriate and effective. 15 In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not the task of this Court, or of the Commission, to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, since it is not incumbent on the international bodies to rectify the lack of precision of the State’s arguments.16 It follows that, when the State claims the existence of a domestic remedy that has not been exhausted, this must not only be indicated opportunely, but also precisely, identifying the remedy in question and also how, in the specific case, it would be adequate and effective to protect the persons in the situation denounced.17 27. Regarding a preliminary objection of this nature, the Court recalls that it is first necessary to determine whether the objection was presented at the appropriate procedural opportunity. The Court notes that the only brief submitted by the State during the admissibility stage before the Commission was Report No. 48-2010-JUS/PPES of March 1, 2010, which contained a description of the domestic Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No.354, para. 39. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 33, para. 86. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 63; Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 86, and Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No.310, supra, para. 35. 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 23. 14 Cf. Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 28, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 22. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Duque v. Colombia, supra, para. 23. 10 16 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 Amrhein et al. v Costa Rica, supra, para.39. 17 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 30, and Case of Dismissed Employees of PetroPerú et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2017. Series C. No. 344, para.27.