2 2. The Commission filed the application for the Court to determine whether the State was responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes, for the alleged inhuman and degrading hospitalization conditions of Damião Ximenes-Lopes, a person with mental disability, in a health center that operated under the Brazilian Single Health System called Casa de Repouso Guararapes (Guararapes Rest Home); the alleged beating and attack on his personal integrity by officials of the Casa de Repouso (Rest Home); his death while confined for psychiatric treatment; as well as the alleged lack of investigation and the failure to enforce the right to a fair trial that were characteristic of the case and that derived in the impunity in which the case still is. The Commission further stated that the events in the instant case were even more serious given the situation of vulnerability in which persons with mental disability are, as well as the State’s special obligation to provide protection to individuals in the care of health centers operating under the Brazilian Single Health System. Consequently, the Commission requested the Court that the State be ordered to adopt the reparation measures specified in the application and to reimburse legal costs and expenses. II JURISDICTION 3. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention as Brazil has been a State Party to the American Convention since September 25, 1992 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on December 10, 1998. III FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Failure to exhaust domestic remedies 4. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that in order to decide on the admissibility of a petition or communication filed with the Inter-American Commission pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary for all domestic remedies to have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law,2 which means that such remedies must not only formally exist, but also be adequate and effective, as derived from the exceptions set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention.3 2 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 48; Case of Tibi, supra note 7, para. 48; and Case of Herrera-Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 80. 3 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 7, para. 134; Case of Tibi, supra note 7, para. 50; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53.