12 Now, and as indicated previously, the latter should make the decision on the admissibility of the pertinent petition in the terms in which it was expressed at the time of its presentation or, at most, of its completion at the request of the Commission’s Executive Secretariat, and not in the terms in which it is expressed at the time at which the decision on its admissibility is made. In particular, and in addition to what has been said previously, this is because it is the initial petition that is forwarded to the State for the latter to answer, 35 and because the decision on its admissibility is adopted after considering the respective positions of the parties. 36 The preceding assertion that the Commission must rule on the petition is consistent with other provisions of its Rules of Procedure which stipulate that, during the initial processing of the petition, if the petition does not meet the pertinent requirements, including the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission’s Secretariat is authorized to request the petitioner to “complete” it.37 To this end, during the abovementioned initial processing – in other words, when the corresponding petition has been lodged – the said Secretariat must evidently “study” whether it meets the said requirements,38 and, during the proceedings on the admissibility of the petition, the Commission itself “verifies” whether the domestic remedies have been pursued and exhausted;39 in other words, it examines the petition and ensures that this is true.40 Hence, these Rules of Procedure do not establish that it is at the time the Commission decides on the admissibility of the petition that the said remedies must be pursued and exhausted, but rather that, at that time, they should already have been pursued and exhausted. Logically, therefore, they must have been pursued and exhausted before the petition was lodged before the Commission. Now, it has been indicated that the Convention did not determine a time limit, following the lodging of the corresponding petition, for the Commission to rule on its admissibility. It should be added that, in this case, considering that “the Admissibility Report was issued on March 9, 2007,”41 the lapse between the latter and the date of the petition – “August 22, 2003”42 – was slightly more than three years and six months. 35 Art. 30(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “For this purpose, it shall forward the relevant parts of the petition to the State in question. The request for information made to the State shall not constitute a prejudgment with regard to any decision the Commission may adopt on the admissibility of the petition.” 36 Art. 36(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “Once it has considered the positions of the parties, the Commission shall make a decision on the admissibility of the matter. The reports on admissibility and inadmissibility shall be public and the Commission shall include them in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.” 37 Art. 29(3): “If the petition does not meet the requirements of these Rules of Procedure, the Commission may request that the petitioner or his or her representative complete them in accordance with Article 26.2 of these Rules.” 38 Art. 26(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, transcribed above. 39 Art. 31(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “In order to decide on the admissibility of a matter, the Commission shall verify whether the remedies of the domestic legal system have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with the generally recognized principles of international law.” 40 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, Real Academia Española, 22nd edition, Madrid, 2001. 41 Para. 17. 42 Idem.