or be in its interests, is essentially required of the petitioner; in other words, it is the petitioner who must comply with it. The Judgment, to the contrary, seems to understand that this rule is a State obligation, because it indicates that, if any remedy is pending, the State can resolve or rectify the situation. However, with this phrase, the Court is also providing an incentive for lodging petitions before the Commission even if domestic remedies have not been exhausted, because these can be exhausted later; thus making it possible for the domestic jurisdiction to co-exist with the inter-American jurisdiction in the same case. In addition, the Judgment appears to disregard the fact that it is not for the State to exhaust the remedies, but rather, when appropriate, it corresponds to the State to decide the situation alleged in the remedies that the petitioner has filed in its jurisdiction and, if the petitioner has not filed any remedies or if they are pending, it is not incumbent on the State to provide any solution, because its international responsibility has not yet been engaged. The fourth reason cited by the Judgment for not admitting the objection in question is as follows: “[i]n addition, the Court considers that it would be contrary to the principle of procedural economy if petitions were not admitted based on the fact that, at the time of the initial presentation, domestic remedies had not been exhausted and if, when the admissibility of these remedies was analyzed, they have been exhausted. The European Court of Human Rights […] has ruled similarly in some cases, as has the International Court of Justice in relation to access to its jurisdiction.”43 With the reference to procedural economy, the Judgment provides more direct encouragement. Hence, it is necessary to reiterate the assertion made previously in this opinion that, if was not compulsory to have exhausted domestic remedies before lodging the petition, it would be permissible that, at least for a time, the same case could be examined simultaneously by the domestic jurisdiction and the international jurisdiction, and this could constitute a perverse incentive to lodge petitions before the Commission even when the said requirement has not been met, in the hope that it can be complied with before the Commission takes a decision on their admissibility. Evidently, that possibility was not envisaged or sought by the Convention. Furthermore, regarding the references to precedents in the case of the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice made by the Judgment in support of this decision,44 it is sufficient to point out that neither the European Convention of Human Rights nor the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice contain a provision such as that of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. In addition, both these bodies are courts rather than a non-judicial entity, as in the case of the Commission, before which compliance with the requirement in question must be substantiated. This means that, in the European case, the rule is that, before resorting to the European Court of Human Rights the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction must be exhausted. This is the general rule, admitting the exception only if this exhaustion is achieved shortly after the presentation of the case. And, in the case of the International Court of Justice, the cases referred to relate to recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and not to the filing of a preliminary objection concerning the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. Consequently, the cases referred to do not represent precedents. 43 Para. 28 of the Judgment. 44 Idem. 17