6 auxiliary source of international public law, i.e., an “auxiliary means for the determination of the rules of law.” 23 This means, on the one hand, that the Court’s jurisprudence is not an autonomous source of international law, i.e., it must necessarily refer to the relevant conventional norms in order to apply and interpret them and, therefore, it is not sufficient on its own to resolve a dispute. On the other hand, it is obviously not immutable, and thus it can be changed by the Court itself, even when it is constant or sufficiently consolidated, especially in consideration of the peculiarities of the case in question and the progressive development of international law. II. CONVENTIONAL RULE CONCERNING THE PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES In the first part of this opinion, I will reiterate and complement, with certain modifications, some general comments made above 24 on the rule in question and the procedure that should be followed in this regard; in other words, with regard to the petition, its study and initial processing by the Commission, the State's response to the petition, its admissibility and the ruling that corresponds to the Court. To conclude, I will address the consequences of considering the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as a requirement of admissibility rather than of the petition. All of which leads me to consider that this rule must be complied with by the petitioner prior to the petition or else the petition must indicate that it is inadmissible. A. General observations Article 46 of the Convention establishes the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies by stating that: “1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; b) that the petition or communication is 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; c) that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement; and d) that, in the case of Article 44, the petition contains the name, nationality, profession, domicile, and signature of the person or persons or of the legal representative of the entity lodging the petition. 23 Art. 38 of the same Statute: “1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. 2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.” 24 See footnote Nº 9.