16 40. The representative indicated that “the Commission […] reached the conclusion that the exception contained in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention was applicable” and, according to the representative, this “is closely related to the merits of the matter.” It considered that, since the State’s position “concerns the admissibility of the case,” the Court, “respecting the principles of procedural economy and equality before the law,” should “support Admissibility Report [No.] 92/06 issued by the […] Commission.” It added that, before the Court, “the State seeks to refer the discussion back to admissibility […] and, in doing so, disregards the principle of estoppel.” It also clarified that the State’s argument “was not presented […] opportunely” because, prior to the Commission’s decision on the admissibility of the case, “the State presented [… seven] briefs,” and “in none of them […] expressly filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” Furthermore, it affirmed that, before the Commission, “[t]he State did not identify the remedies to be exhausted or describe their effectiveness.” In this regard, it underscored that “during the proceedings before the […] Commission, the State [… had] acknowledged its responsibility for […] the delay in the investigation.” Consequently, the representative argued that it was admissible to “apply the principle of estoppel” to the “analysis] of the preliminary objection.” It pointed out that, “if the Court should decide to revise the Commission’s decision on admissibility, [… it] ask[ed] that […] the Court analyze the unwarranted delay in the domestic investigation in light of possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.” Despite the foregoing, it also stated that “[w]hen the Admissibility Report was issued […] almost [five] years had passed since the disappearance and subsequent murder of the child, María Isabel Veliz Franco and the […] criminal proceedings […] were still at the investigation stage”; and asserted that “[t]he numerous omissions and the negligence in which the authorities incurred from the initial stages of the investigation are the real causes of the delay.” 41. The Commission argued that “the American Convention attributes decisions on admissibility to [the Commission] in the first place, and such decisions are adopted based on the information available when the [respective] ruling is made.” Accordingly, it considered that “the Court should maintain some degree of deference to the decisions of the Commission in this regard.” It indicated that in “the Admissibility Report, […] it had first observed that there had been an unwarranted delay of almost seven months owing [to a] jurisdictional dispute.” It added that, “in any case, […] the evidence taken into account at the admissibility stage was confirmed fully at the merits stage,” and concluded that “the preliminary objection […] is inadmissible.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes one of the requirements for “[a]dmission by the Commission of a petition or communication,” which is “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” One of the exceptions to this requirement, established in paragraph 2(c) of this article, arises when “there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” 43. As revealed by Admissibility Report No. 92/06 dated October 21, 2006, on January 26, 2004, the Commission received a “complaint in [relation to] the investigation into the death of María Isabel Veliz Franco, […] who disappeared on December 17, 2001,” and “forwarded [this …] to the State on September 24, 2004.”27 The Court notes that, between September 24, 2004, and October 21, 2006, in addition to requests for an extension, the State sent the Commission a total of six communications concerning the case.28 In the first brief, submitted to the Commission on December 16, 2004, the State described measures corresponding to the investigation that was being conducted by the Public Prosecution Service in order “to open criminal proceedings against the guilty parties,” and observed that 27 28 Admissibility Report No. 92/06, supra. Cf. Communications from the State received by the Inter-American Commission on December 16, 2004; April 12, 2005, and April 3 repeated on April 5; May 24 and July 13, 2006 (file before the Commission, tome I, fs. 1067 to 1080; 969 to 973; 899 to 901; 891 to 893; 863 to 868, and 830 to 834, respectively).