5 In addition, attention should be called to the fact that the said rule entails conciliation, compatibility or an adequate balance between the domestic jurisdiction, exclusive to the respective State, and the inter-American human rights jurisdiction. From this perspective, respecting these elements evidently constitutes, as regards the Court, an expression of the impartiality and objectivity that should reign in its actions as an organ responsible for imparting justice in the area of human rights. Based on the foregoing, breaching or ignoring the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies would not only run counter to what was agreed on by the States Parties to the Convention as established in it, but would also call into question the whole of the said inter-American system, affecting the legal certainty that it provides and guarantees. II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE OBLIGATION CONCERNING EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES IN THIS CASE THE PRIOR Now the question arises of whether, in this case, it was appropriate to comply with the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies previously and, if the answer is affirmative, when this should have taken place. Indeed, it is necessary to distinguish between the preliminary objection raised by the State concerning the lodging of the petition before the Commission prior to the delivery of the guilty verdict,15 and the one relating to the failure to exhaust remedies relating to the restriction of the right to leave the country. A. The failure to exhaust domestic remedies based on submission of the petition to the Commission prior to the delivery of the guilty verdict 1. Pertinence of the obligation of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies Regarding the rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Judgment asserts “… that the petitioner argued the presumed violation of the right to appeal the judgment convicting him and the principle of legality before the High Court of Justice, which had been decided unfavorably in an interlocutory decision of June 12, 2003, before the respective complaint was submitted to the Commission,” so that “consequently, the Court finds that, in this case, owing to the inexistence of an appeal against the possible guilty verdict, the delivery of this verdict was not an essential 16 requirement for the submission of the case to the Commission.” In this regard, it must be recalled that, by affirming the above, it is being accepted that the mere possibility that the judgment of the State’s High Court of Justice, which could not be appealed, would convict the petitioner, was sufficient reason for not requiring compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. The grounds for this determination are, therefore, a decision that had not been taken when the petition was lodged before the Commission. Moreover, there was no certainty that this decision – the said judgment with a guilty verdict – would be taken. In addition, in this regard, the considerations in the Judgment were based only on the inexistence of a remedy of appeal against this possible judgment, in the circumstances 15 Paras. 10 and 17. 16 Para. 18.