C. Study and initial processing by the Commission However, in addition to benefitting both the State and the presumed victim or the petitioner and representing an obligation for the latter, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies also entails an obligation for the Commission. Indeed, according to Article 26(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, “[t]he Executive Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the study and initial processing of petitions lodged before the Commission that fulfill all the requirements set forth in the Statute and in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure.” Meanwhile, and as already indicated, Articles 26(2) and 29(1)(b) of the text add that “[i]f a petition or communication does not meet the requirements set forth in these Rules of Procedure, the Executive Secretariat may request the petitioner or his or her representative to fulfill them.” Furthermore, Article 29(1) of those Rules of Procedure establishes that, “[t]he Commission, acting initially through the Executive Secretariat, shall receive and carry out the initial processing of the petitions presented” and adds that the Commission must register each petition and “record the date of receipt on the petition itself and acknowledge receipt to the petitioner.” Lastly, according to Article 30(1) of this instrument, “[t]he Commission, through its Executive Secretariat, shall process the petitions that meet the requirements set forth in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure.” Consequently, the steps taken by the Executive Secretariat, acting on behalf of the Commission, as regards the petition that has been “lodged” are not limited merely to verifying whether it includes the required information; rather it must carry out the “study and initial processing” of the petition, provided that it “fulfill[s] all the requirements set forth,” including, evidently, the most important, namely, that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Thus, the Commission, acting through its Executive Secretariat, must carry out an initial control of conventionality of the petition, ensuring that it meets the requirements established in the Convention in order to be considered “lodged.” Reasonably, the foregoing infers that the domestic remedies must have been exhausted before the petition is lodged before the Commission because, to the contrary, the logic and need for the “study and initial processing” by the Commission’s Executive Secretariat cannot be understood, or the reason why the petitioner may be requested to complete it, or why the petitioner should indicate the steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies; furthermore, the time frame indicated for its presentation would be meaningless. Lastly, bearing in mind that the Commission’s function consists in studying the petition, requesting its completion, and processing it, it must be concluded that all of this must be carried out in keeping with the terms in which the petition has been “lodged.” Thus, it can be affirmed that, just as “it is not the task of the Court, or of the Commission, to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, so that it is not incumbent on the international organs to rectify the lack of precision of the State’s arguments,”25 it is not their task to rectify the petition or accord it a broader scope than 25 Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292, para. 49. 8