23. The State argued that there is “irrefutable” evidence that the representatives brought their case before the inter-American system without having exhausted domestic remedies. It stated that in November of 2006, this case was sent to the Commission; in 2007, the alleged victims made use of domestic measures before the National Council of Justice to seek the State’s administrative and civil liability; and in 2008, the mother of Gabriel Sales Pimenta sought compensation for pain and suffering. Moreover, it declared that the State did not hinder or unduly delay the use of remedies for determining state liability with respect to its obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for the death of Mr. Sales Pimenta. 24. The Commission recalled that the American Convention directly accords it responsibility for decisions on matters of admissibility and that, in accordance with the rules of the Convention and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the analysis of admissibility must not be subject to review. It pointed out that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies had been met by virtue of a final criminal judgment. It also recalls that with respect to alleged violations of the right to life, domestic remedies that are relevant for admissibility are those related to criminal investigation and the possible punishment of responsible parties. Finally, it noted that the State did not present its objection regarding a failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the proper procedural occasion. 25. The representatives noted that the State, in its initial statements before the Commission, made no mention of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and they argued that this constitutes a tacit choice not to present such a preliminary objection. They also indicated that the domestic remedies specified by the State were not appropriate to remedy the alleged violations and that they have now been exhausted. They argued that the State failed to demonstrate why the administrative remedy before the National Council of Justice and the compensatory action were appropriate remedies. B.2. Considerations of the Court 26. The Court recalls that Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that for determining the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Commission under the terms of either Article 44 or Article 45 of the Convention, “remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 27. On several occasions, the Court has specified that the proper procedural time for a State to bring any objections related to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies is during the admissibility proceedings before the Inter-American Commission. 19 If such an objection is not presented at the proper time, the State loses the ability to make use of that defense before this Court. 20 28. From its analysis of the record before the Inter-American Commission, the Court confirms that on January 31, 2007, the Commission notified the State of the complaint presented by the petitioners, and Brazil made statements on three separate occasions prior to the October 17, 2008, Admissibility Report: in its June 4, 2007, answering brief; in its August 29, 2007, brief with observations on the additional information presented by the petitioners; and in its January 3, 2008, brief with additional observations on admissibility. The Court notes that because not one of the aforementioned communications contains a State allegation of a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it concludes that the State did not allege a failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the proper procedural occasion, that is, during the admissibility stage of the case before the Commission. Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, and reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, para. 26. 19 20 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 21. 9