6 admissibility procedure carried out before the Commission,17 and thus it is understood that after that opportune procedural moment, the principle of legal estoppel comes into effect;18 in addition it befalls upon the State, upon arguing the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to note which remedies have not been exhausted and their effectiveness.19 The Inter-American Court has held that the interpretation given to Article 46(1) of the American Convention for more than two decades is in conformity with international law.20 The Inter-American Court has held that the interpretation it has given to article 46.1.a of the American Convention for more than two decades is in conformity with international law. 22. In this case, we must distinguish between three stages, namely: (i) receipt of the initial petition of the victim before the Commission (August 22, 2003); (ii) the submission of the relevant parts of the initial petition to the State (April 18, 2005); and (iii) the Commission’s Report on Admissibility (March 9, 2007). The Inter-American Court, in its judgment, considered it reasonable that the petitioner not wait until the issuance of the judgment of the High Court of Justice of Suriname, being that an adequate remedy to challenge said decision did not exist and that the victim’s objections had already been rejected by Interlocutory Resolution of the High Court of Justice of June 12, 2003. 21 If the Commission had determined the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies prima facie —using the moment when the petition was filed as the point at which the question of exhaustion would be evaluated — it would have forgone the opportunity to evaluate the situation, one which warranted waiting for the issuance of the judgment and subsequently transmitting the case to the State. It must not be overlooked, as stated in this Judgment, and following the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court itself,22 that “it is not the duty of the Court, or the Commission, to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted. The Court emphasizes that it is not up to the international bodies to remedy the imprecision in the State’s arguments.”23 23. It is true that the principle of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed in the interest of the State, because it seeks to exempt the latter from responding before an international body for acts that are attributed to it, before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by its own means.24 The foregoing is established in the preamble of the American Convention which establishes that international protection is “reinforcing or 17 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 81; and Case of Mémoli V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 47. 18 Case of Mémoli V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 47. 19 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paras. 88 and 91; and Case of Mémoli V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265,paras. 46 and 47. See also para. 15 of the Judgment. 20 Case of Santo Domingo Massacre V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 34. 21 Cf. para. 18 of the Judgment. 22 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 Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro Fertilization) V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012 Series C No. 257, para. 23. 23 24 Cf. para. 16 of the Judgment. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61; and Case of Santo Domingo Massacre V. Colombia.Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012, Series C No. 259, para. 33.