17 However, the aforementioned communication says nothing about compliance with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, as required by Articles 46(1)(a) of the Convention and 29(d) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, in force at the time. Nor does the communication invoke the provisions of Articles 46(2) of the Convention and 34(3) of the aforementioned Rules of Procedure, i.e., it does not allege any grounds for being unable to comply with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. B. Study and initial processing On the other hand, there is no record that the Commission’s Executive Secretariat requested that CEAPAZ complete the petition, as required by Article 27(2) of the aforementioned regulatory text. Likewise, there is no record in the case file that the Executive Secretariat decided, in accordance with Article 31(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to process the petition because it considered that it met the requirements set forth in Article 46 of the Convention. In any case, if such a decision was adopted, it is not clear from the record whether it was adopted because of compliance with the provisions of Article 46(1) of the Convention, i.e., prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, or because one of the hypotheses set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention was invoked and proven, i.e., one of the grounds for exemption from this obligation was alleged. Finally, it should be noted that there is no record of the Commission having requested CEAPAZ, in accordance with the provisions of Article 30 of its Rules of Procedure, to complete the petition or, in accordance Article 32(a) of the same text, to clarify any remaining doubts. C. Those contained in the State’s response or observations In a note dated November 4, 1991 in response to the petition, the State reported that “the Joint Command of the Armed Forces, after the conducting investigations, has reported that it has been proven that a patrol of the Counterinsurgency Battalion No. 43-PAMPAS, committed excesses against fourteen (14) peasants, presumed to be subversive criminals from the Rodeo Pampa peasant community” and that “the Ministry of Defense (…) reports that the corresponding complaint against [various persons] has been referred to the Court Martial of the Second Army Judicial District.” Later, in a communication of September 21, 1992, the State made it known that “(t)he criminal proceeding initiated is currently (...) in the second jurisdictional instance, which will issue the respective judgment soon” and that “in the present case, the domestic jurisdiction has not been exhausted.” For that reason, “it requests that we proceed accordingly.” Thus, the State filed, in the petition itself, the objection regarding the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to the petition. Thus, in accordance with Article 31(1)(c) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, the State responded to the pertinent parts of the petition that were transcribed, just as the petition was “lodged” and, therefore, did not have to demonstrate the domestic remedies that had not been exhausted or which were adequate, suitable and effective, given that the petition, as indicated above, did not allege prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or the impossibility of complying with this requirement. If the petition had argued compliance with the requirements of Article 46