17 remedies or their due exhaustion.11 In view of the foregoing, the State was barred from alleging the failure to exhaust the hierarchic recourses, and the remedies of amparo, unconstitutionality and appeal for revision before the Civil Status Registrar and before the court of first instance, in the proceeding before the Court. 65. Consequently, and bearing in mind the Inter-American Commission’s reasoning, which is consequent with the relevant provisions of the American Convention, the Court rejects the first preliminary objection filed by the State. * * * SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Non-compliance with the friendly settlement presented by the Commission and accepted by the State Arguments of the State 66. The State argued that: a) On November 1, 1999, the Commission made itself available to the parties to reach a friendly settlement, a procedure accepted by the Dominican Republic and, in this context, the representatives made demands, which it considered “[went] far beyond the purpose of a friendly settlement;” b) On August 24, 2001, the State, the Commission and the representatives met in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, at the offices of the Central Electoral Board, in order “to resolve this case,” and c) On September 25, 2001, the State delivered the birth certificates to the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. However, the representatives have not wanted to accept that the delivery of the birth certificates was the result of the friendly settlement. In this case, Article 49 of the American Convention should be applied, based on the Commission’s credibility before the States, and the application should be rejected. Arguments of the Commission 67. The Commission argued that: a) As of November 1, 1999, it urged the parties to commence a procedure with the purpose of achieving a friendly settlement. Given the positions of the representatives and the State, it considered that the negotiations were terminated following the meeting held in the Dominican Republic on August 24, 2001; 11 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary objections, supra note 9, para. 56; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C. No, 41, para. 56, and Case of Loayza Tamayo. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C. No. 25, para. 43.