to examine violations of the rights enshrined in that 6 declaration. Nevertheless, the IACHR has previously established 7 that, once the American Convention comes into force with respect to any State, it is that instrument, and not the declaration, that becomes the specific source of law which the Commission must apply, provided that the petition alleges violations of substantially identical rights protected by both instruments,8 and a continuing situation is not involved.9 B. Other requirements of admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 72. As a requirement for admissibility, Article 46.1 of the American Convention requires “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law".10 Both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereafter "the Court" or "the Inter-American Court") and the IACHR have ruled repeatedly that, according to the generally recognized principles of international law and international practice, the rule that requires prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived "in the interest of the State", as it seeks to dispense the State from having to respond to an international body for actions imputed to it before having had the opportunity to remedy them by its own means.11 Nevertheless, the Convention also stipulates that this provision does not apply when such domestic remedies are not available, de facto or de iure. More specifically, Article 46.2 establishes 6 See also I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 41. 7 See IACHR, Amílcar Menéndez et al., Report Nº 03/01 of January 19, 2001, Case 11.670,(Argentina), para. 41. 8 I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, para. 46. 9 The IACHR has held that it has jurisdiction to examine violations of the declaration and of the Convention, where there is a demonstrated continuity in the violation of rights protected by both instruments. See for example IACHR Annual Report 1980 788, Resolution 26/88, Case 10,190 Argentina; and IACHR Annual Report 1998, Report 38/99, Argentina, para 13. 10 See I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 17. 11 See I/A Court H.R., In the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No. G 101/81, para. 28.