the unreasonable delays in domestic remedies. They added that the alleged victim was not responsible for following up on the arrest warrants, since the State “cannot delegate its obligation of due diligence to investigate and prosecute the violations to the victim and her family.” Furthermore, they indicated that, during the proceedings before the Commission, Bolivia did not mention that Brisa's alleged conduct hindered the apprehension of E.G.A. Finally, they stated that the alleged harm suffered by Brisa from State agents, while she was using domestic remedies, demonstrate their inadequacy. A.2 Considerations of the Court 20. Taking into account the statements made by the parties and the Commission, the Court recalls, in the first instance, that Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that, to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication presented before the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that the remedies in the domestic jurisdiction have been filed and exhausted, in accordance with the generally recognized principles of International Law,21 or that one of the exceptional circumstances of Article 46(2) of the Convention is proven. 21. On various occasions, this Court has specified that the appropriate procedural moment for the State to present a possible objection related to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies is the admissibility procedure before the Commission.22 It has also stated that the State presenting this exception must specify the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted and demonstrate that these remedies are suitable and effective.23 Similarly, the arguments that give substance to the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage must correspond to those put forward before the Court.24 It is also necessary that the opposing objection can be analyzed in a preliminary manner, which does not occur if it concerns an issue inseparably linked to the substance of the dispute.25 22. In the sub judice case, it comes to light that the State filed the preliminary objection in question during the proceedings before the Commission, through its briefs of March 5, 201426 and October 17, 2014.27 On those occasions, it indicated that the case was inadmissible, since domestic remedies had not been exhausted, since the criminal proceedings established to examine the same facts that had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission were still underway. Furthermore, it argued that the process had been prolonged by the parties in the criminal process filing various appeals. According to the case Admissibility Report, on March 18, 2017, the Commission decided to admit it based on the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies contemplated in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, considering that there was an unjustified delay in the decision regarding Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2022. Series C No. 454, para. 26. 21 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 Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 27. 22 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, para. 28. 24 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012, Series C No. 246, para. 29, and Case of the Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 17, 2021. Series C No. 445, para. 25 25 Cf. Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 468, para. 24. Similarly, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 96, and Case of the Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 27. Cf. Brief presented by the State during the proceedings before the Commission on March 5, 2014 (evidence file, folios 765 and 766). 26 27 Cf. Brief presented by the State during the proceedings before the Commission on October 17, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1372 and 1373). 9