A. Objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies A.1. Arguments of the State and observations by the Commission and the representative 15. The State claimed that the alleged victim had the obligation to exhaust a domestic remedy in administrative proceedings “against the order of the Army General Command No. 527 CP/EP/CP-JAPE dated […] March 3, 1995,” which decided to retire him as a disciplinary measure, before recurring to an international jurisdiction. 16. The State also indicated that the objection was made at the correct procedural time, given that in the brief of November 13, 1998, it clearly specified the remedy that was not exhausted. Regarding the suitability and effectiveness of the domestic remedy not exhausted, in its answering brief the State cited the articles of the Political Constitution of 1993 and the Civil Procedural Code in effect at the time of the facts that permitted filing an action in administrative proceedings before a civil judge of the corresponding area, and indicated that in previous petitions the Commission had determined that said proceedings constituted “an effective remedy to challenge administrative orders.” Finally, it concluded that the instant case “does not meet the conditions to make an exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies.” 17. The Commission expressed that “although during the admissibility stage the State indicated several times that the petition was inadmissible due to its lack of merit and it invoked Article 47(c) of the American Convention and Article 35(b) of its Rules of Procedure, “it did not expressly file the objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.” It claimed that “it was before the Inter-American Court that the State first expressly filed the objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies and identified the regulation in the Political Constitution and in the Civil Procedural Code of Peru,” without providing information that “would prove the suitability and effectiveness of the administrative remedy.” Consequently, the Commission argues that the preliminary objection filed by the State of Peru is time-barred and requests that it be rejected. 18. The representative claimed that during the admissibility stage before the Commission the State did not file “within the adequate term or procedural time the preliminary objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.” Furthermore, it argued that the remedy specified by the State “was not [...] suitable or effective in the case of the [alleged] victim.” This is because at the time of the facts, in the context of a “civilian-military dictatorship,” “there were no references of Army Officers retired by disciplinary measure and prosecuted for civil and military crimes, [...] that were reinstated after resorting to that domestic remedy.” Thus, the alleged victim “did not have the obligation to file an administrative claim against the order of the General Command” that retired him. Hence, it asked the Court to declare the State’s request inadmissible. A.2. Considerations of the Court 19. The Court notes that Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that in order for the Commission to admit a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.11 The Court has also established that this objection must be presented in a timely manner, meaning, during the admissibility stage before the Commission 12 and it has indicated that the State that files this preliminary objection must specify the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and prove that they are applicable and effective.13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88 and Case of Perrone and Preckel v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 8, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 33. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, supra note 11, para. 31, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 21. 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Perrone and Preckel v. Argentina, supra note 11, para. 33. 11 7