46(2) of the Convention. 29 Since the State has alleged the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it should have indicated, at the appropriate opportunity, the remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. It is not the task of the Court, or of the Commission, to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, and it is not incumbent on the international organs to rectify the lack of precision of the State’s arguments. 30 This reveals that when the State refers to 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. 31. In the procedure prior to the decision on the admissibility of this case, the Commission made no distinction between the proceedings on the admissibility of the case and the processing of precautionary and provisional measures; moreover, the Admissibility report does not reveal any background information for the decision other than the processing of the said measures. In addition, the brief of August 8, 2000, on which the State substantiates its arguments, is part of “the whole case filed before the Commission,” copy of which was forwarded to the Court, as indicated in the brief submitting the case. Also, the Commission mentioned that the said brief “w[ould] be duly dealt with during the contentious procedure before the Commission.” 31 Consequently, even though the parties and the Commission are in agreement in indicating that the processing of provisional measures is different from that of the contentious case (supra paras. 28 and 29, and infra footnote 42), which, in general, is in keeping with the Court’s case law, 32 in the specific circumstances of this case, this, in itself, is insufficient to conclude that the State did not present the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies opportunely. 32. Thus, the Court notes that, in its brief of August 8, 2000, the State alleged that the presumed victims had not exhausted the domestic proceedings and indicated that the available remedy was the application for amparo. Nevertheless, apart from this mention on that occasion, the Dominican Republic did not explain the supposed suitability and effectiveness of the remedy of amparo in light of the facts of this case. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64 and 66, and Case of Memolí v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 46. 29 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 63, and Case of Memolí v. Argentina, para. 46. 30 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 Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 16. 31 The Commission made this assertion when presenting observations on the said brief of August 8, 2000, during the processing of the provisional measures. As in the case of this brief, the Commission’s observations were forwarded to the Court during the processing of the contentious case before the Court, because they are included in the file of the contentious processing of the case before the Commission that was provided to the Court (cf. file before the Commission, fs. 835 to 837). 32 The Court has stated that “the purpose of the proceedings on [provisional measures is] accessory, precautionary and protective in nature; it is different from the purpose of a contentious case, in both the procedural aspects and the assessment of the evidence and in the implications of the decisions. Consequently, although the arguments, factual grounds and probative elements aired during the provisional measures may be closely related to the facts of the […] case, they are not automatically considered as such or as supervening facts” (cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 58). Despite this, the Court has considered circumstances in which the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, and the presumed victims of a contentious case were the same and, also, in which the purpose of such measures also coincides to a certain extent with the merits of the dispute. In this context, the Court has indicated that, “as appropriate, and insofar as they have been opportunely, specifically and duly mentioned and identified by the parties in relation to their arguments” it could “consider part of the body of evidence” “the briefs and documentation presented in the proceedings on provisional measures” (cf. Case of Uzcategui et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 249, para. 33). 15