having exhausted domestic remedies. Chile did not specify in this brief which remedies had yet to be exhausted. With respect to the new proceedings, it requested only that the petition be declared inadmissible “on the grounds of supervening information.23 The alleged victims from the twelve new proceedings introduced by the petitioners were identified individually in a brief filed on December 15, 2008,24 and the procedural steps undertaken to exhaust domestic remedies for these new cases were outlined in detail in a brief dated February 22, 2011.25 The State was notified of both briefs by means of notes dated January 27, 200926 and March 22, 2011,27 respectively, in which the State was also asked to comment within one month’s time. The State made no comment on these briefs. The State therefore did not plead any objections regarding these twelve new cases from the municipalities of Chanco, Pelluhue, Parral, Vallenar, and Cauquenes during the admissibility stage before the Commission. 23. Therefore, the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the cases of Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993; Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993; Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993; Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket. No. 222-1993; Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993; Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993, and Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993 is held to be unfounded because it was not submitted during the admissibility stage before the Commission. B.2 Preliminary objection on the case of Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994 24. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states that the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged by the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 thereof is subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.28 25. This Court notes that, with respect to the case of Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, the State argued in its observations submitted to the Commission on August 9, 2006, that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.29 The State therefore lodged its preliminary objection on this case within the required period. 23 Cf. Brief submitted by the State to the Commission, August 29, 2008 (evidence file, folio 7548). 24 Cf. Brief submitted to the Commission by Ciro Colombara López and Giampiero Fava Cohen, December 15, 2008 (evidence file, folios 4281 to 4310). 25 Cf. Brief submitted to the Commission by Ciro Colombara López and Giampiero Fava Cohen, February 22, 2011 (evidence file, folios 4671 to 4679). 26 Cf. Communiqué from the Inter-American Commission, January 27, 2009 (evidence file, folio 4278). 27 Cf. Communiqué from the Inter-American Commission, March 22, 2011 (evidence file, folio 4668). 28 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 85, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 22. 29 The State argued that in this case, the municipality had requested the domestic judge to relieve it from complying with the judicial order to issue a mayoral executive order for payment. The court responded to this judicial order by ordering on June 20, 2005, that it be added to the record. According to the State, the petitioners could challenge this order with remedies of reconsideration, appeal, cassation, and a special appeal for denial of justice. It further argued that the petitioners could have lodged an appeal for constitutional relief or requested a court order admonishing the mayor to issue payment. Cf. Brief submitted to the Commission, August 9, 2006 (evidence file, folios 7495ff). 10