11 28 suitable and effective,” and that “when alleging the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State must indicate on that occasion the remedies that must be 29 exhausted and their effectiveness.” However, the considerations in the Judgment must be complemented by the provisions of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, that: “[w]hen the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.”30 In other words, only if the petitioner contends that he or she has been unable to exhaust the domestic remedies previously, must the State demonstrate that this has not been done, unless this is clearly evident from the case file. In the instant case, the Judgment records that, after the pertinent parts of the alleged victim’s petition had been forwarded to the State on April 18, 2005, granting it two months, later extended for one month more, to present its answer, “[o]n July 18, 2005 [in other words, within the said time frame], the State argued that the case had been submitted before the final decision of the High Court of Justice.”31 That is to say, the State indicated that the domestic remedies had not yet been exhausted, a requirement that, as indicated above, was not mentioned and, above all, not explained, in the corresponding petition. 4. Admissibility of the pertinent petition or communication The time at which the Commission rules on the admissibility of a petition or communication differs entirely from the time that this is presented or completed. This is evident when it is recalled that the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide for an initial review of the petition,32 its initial processing,33 and a proceeding on its admissibility,34 all of the foregoing carried out by the Executive Secretariat of the Commission, acting on its behalf. 28 Para. 15. 29 Para. 16. 30 Art. 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 31 Para. 17. 32 Art. 26(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “The Executive Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the study and initial processing of petitions lodged before the Commission that fulfill all the requirements set forth in the Statute and in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure.” Art. 30(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “The Commission, through its Executive Secretariat, shall process the petitions that meet the requirements set forth in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure.” 33 Art. 29(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “The Commission, acting initially through the Executive Secretariat, shall receive and carry out the initial processing of the petitions presented. Each petition shall be registered, the date of receipt shall be recorded on the petition itself and an acknowledgement of receipt shall be sent to the petitioner.” Art. 36(1) and 2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “Decision on Admissibility. 1. 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. 2. When an admissibility report is adopted, the petition shall be registered as a case and the proceedings on the merits shall be initiated. The adoption of an admissibility report does not constitute a prejudgment as to the merits of the matter.” 34