23. The Commission reiterated the indication regarding the issue of exhaustion in its Admissibility Report in relation to the fact that at the time the CNM issued the non-ratification decisions between 2001 and 2002, there was, in the legal framework, a prohibition to present judicial and administrative appeals against CNM decisions. Therefore, the alleged victims did not have a quick and effective remedy to question their non-ratification. 24. Furthermore, the Commission stated that the State itself acknowledges that the preliminary objection was filed late, since it was not alleged in the admissibility stage of the case. It held that violations of the principle of legality were part of the debate in the admissibility stage, as stated in the Admissibility Report. In addition, the Commission argued that the violation of the principle of legality derives from a principal violation relating to violations of due process and “it is not the practice of the organs of the inter-American system, because they do not meet reasonable parameters, to demand the exhaustion of internal remedies separately and independently against each of the effects derived from a principal violation.” 25. Finally, the Commission requested that the preliminary objection be dismissed, taking into account its late submission and its lack of substantive legal basis. A.2. Considerations of the Court 26. The Court has indicated that Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that, in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication presented before the Commission, in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary to have filed and exhausted domestic remedies, in accordance with generally recognized principles of International Law. 17 These principles do not refer only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to their being adequate and effective, by virtue of the exceptions referred to in article 46(2). 27. The Court recalls that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented during the admissibility stage of the case before the Commission. 18 To this end, the State must, first, clearly specify before the Commission, during the admissibility stage of the case, the remedies that, in its opinion, have not yet been exhausted and demonstrate that these remedies are applicable and effective. Furthermore, the arguments that inform the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage must correspond to those put forward before the Court. 19 Following is an examination of whether the State presented the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the appropriate procedural moment in relation to the petitions presented by the alleged victims. 28. Regarding Mr. Cuya’s petition No. 320-03, in response to the Commission's communication of July 25, 2012, in its report No. 199-2012-JUS / PPES of September 6, 2012 20, in the admissibility stage, the State focused its allegations on the implementation of different measures related to legislative changes and steps to reach friendly settlement agreements. In the merits 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 20. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 21. 19 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 29, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia, supra, para. 21. 20 Cf. State Report No. 199-2012-JUS/PPES related to the petition filed by Mr. Cuya on September 6, 2012 (Merits file, fs. 537 to 549). 10