7 (second, third, fourth, and sixth objections), and the alleged absence of a prior demand with respect to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention (fifth objection). 27. The Court proceeds to consider the preliminary objections pertaining to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 28. As to this objection, the State has argued that: a) domestic remedies had not been exhausted when the complaint was lodged with the Commission or when the application was filed with the Court; b) when this complaint was lodged and the release of CantoralBenavides was requested, a criminal proceeding was ongoing in Peru before the Forty-Third Criminal Court of Lima, pursuant to Decree-Law No. 25,475 and its supplementary norms, which was the appropriate forum to determine his legal status; c) Cantoral-Benavides, or another person in his name, could have filed a motion for review of the October 6, 1995 Judgment, in accordance with Articles 361 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and d) the writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Cantoral-Benavides on September 23, 1993, did not exhaust domestic remedies. 29. As to this objection, the Commission argued that: a) when the complaint in this case was lodged, the rules contained in Article 46(2)(a)(b) of the Convention were applicable, since from the moment when Cantoral-Benavides was detained there was no appropriate remedy that he could have interposed, as he was tried pursuant to DecreeLaws No. 25.659 and 26.248, which prohibit the filing of a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of those tried for the crime of terrorism or treason against the fatherland; b) as the State has the burden of proof, it should identify an appropriate remedy to protect the legal right that was infringed and the effectiveness of that remedy. The Commission added that Peru “on raising the objection did not indicate or identify a specific remedy that the accused should have exhausted.” Also according to the Commission “it is illogical and legally anomalous to require of a person that raises the issue of double jeopardy, as he has in this case, to exhaust the domestic remedies in the proceeding that said person objects to ab-initio and completely;” c) by promulgating "amnesty" laws No. 26.479 and 26.492, Peru renounced the duty to investigate and sanction those responsible for crimes such as the concealment of the mistake in the execution of the August 11, 1993 Judgment of acquittal, and the torture and other illegal treatment of Cantoral-Benavides that violated fundamental rights in the present case; d) on October 22, 1993 the petitioners filed an appeal for revision of the Judgment of September 24, 1993, which was declared inadmissible that same day by the Supreme Court of Justice (supra 2.f). According to the Commission this attempt satisfied the prerequisite for resort to the international forum.