stipulates that the petition must contain information on “[a]ny steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so.” It should be noted that, by referring to the said Rules of Procedure, attention is being drawn to how the Commission itself, by approving this legal instrument, has interpreted the provisions of the Convention and, in particular in this case, its Article 46(1)(a). Clearly for the same reason, Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure refers to the situation in which “the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article.” In other words, this provision indicates that the specific exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are established in favor of the presumed victim or the petitioner. Consequently, it is the petitioner and no one else, not even the Commission, who may argue or assert some of the exceptions to the said rule and, evidently, this can only be done when the petition is drawn up. The second comment regarding the petition relates to the fact that Article 46(1) of the Convention refers to it as “lodged,” which means that it should be considered just as it was submitted and if, at that time, it meets the requirements set out in this provision, it should be admitted. Accordingly, it is at that moment – the moment of its submission – when it should have complied with the requirement concerning the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention and, only if this is so, the petition “lodged” may be “admitted” by the Commission. Similarly, Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention is based on the same concept since it establishes that, for the petition to be admitted, it must have been “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” Undoubtedly, it should be understood that this should be the judgment handed down on the last remedy that was filed, with no other remedies that may be filed. In other words, the time frame indicated for lodging the petition is calculated from the date of notification of the final decision of the domestic authorities or courts on the remedies that have been filed before them and, consequently, these may have resulted in the State’s international responsibility, which evidently implies that they must have been exhausted when the petition was “lodged.” Meanwhile, Article 26(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that the initial processing is carried out of the petitions “that fulfill all the requirements set forth,” and such petitions must indicate, as established by the above-mentioned Article 28(h), the “steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so,” and if they do not meet this requirement, “the Commission[, as established in Articles 26(2) and 29(1)(b) of these Rules of Procedure,] may request the petitioner or his or her representative to fulfill them.” Moreover, according to the said Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, the Commission should consider, only those petitions “lodged within a period of six months from the date” of notification of the decision that exhausted the domestic remedies. Based on all the above, it can be concluded that, ultimately, compliance with the said rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies constitutes a requirement that the petition must meet in order to be “lodged.” sessions held from October 6 to 24, 2003, at its 126th regular period of sessions held from October 16 to 27, 2006, and at its 132nd regular period of sessions held from July 17 to 25, 2008. 7