B.1 Admissibility of the preliminary objection regarding the cases against the municipalities of Chanco, Pelluhue and Cauquenes 16 21. The Court recalls that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies should be raised during the admissibility stage in the proceedings before the Commission.17 The State should thus first identify clearly to the Commission, during the admissibility stage of the case, what remedies it finds have not yet been exhausted. Moreover, the arguments given as grounds for the preliminary objection submitted by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage must match those also lodged before the Court.18 22. The Court observes, in this regard, that in the instant case, the originating petition was lodged on November 23, 2005, on behalf of only the eighty teachers in the municipality of Chañaral, under the case Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,269-1994.19 On August 9, 2006, the State filed a brief setting forth five “grounds for inadmissibility” applicable to this originating petition.20 The representatives requested on February 26, 2007, that the petition be expanded to include alleged victims from twelve proceedings against five other municipalities.21 This brief was forwarded to the State by means of a note dated March 30, 2007, in which the Commission asked the State for comments.22 On August 29, 2008, the State submitted a brief arguing that the debt of the municipality of Chañaral had been settled under a payment plan and therefore requested that this complaint be found inadmissible, adding that the petitioners had turned to the inter-American jurisdiction without 16 This section will examine the cases (1) Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 2211993; (2) Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993; (3) Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993; (4) Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 222-1993; (5) Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993; (6) Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993, and (7) Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993. 17 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 01, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 22. 18 Cfr. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 29 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 22. 19 Cf. Opening petition submitted to the Commission by Alfredo Etcheberry Orthusteguy and Giampiero Fava Cohen on November 23, 2005 (evidence file, folios 4202 to 4223. 20 The State claimed “grounds for inadmissibility” because the grievance was presented outside the requisite six-month period and because of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, overlapping procedures in the international jurisdiction, verification of whether or not complainants were exposed to acts that qualify as a violation of protected rights, and petitioners’ lack of standing. Cf. Brief submitted to the Commission on August 9, 2006 (evidence file, folios 7495 to 7517). 21 The processes in question are: (1) Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993 (10 teachers); (2) Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993 (70 teachers); (3) Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993 (28 teachers); (4) Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket. No. 222-1993 (4 teachers); (5) Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,274-1993 (6 teachers); (6) Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,0711992 (27 teachers); (7) Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992 (35 teachers); (8) Salazar Aravena et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992 (22 teachers); (9) Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993 (193 teachers); (10) Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993 (1 teacher); (11) Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993 (36 teachers), and (12) Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993 (336 teachers) (Cf. Brief introduced before the Commission by Juan Pablo Olmedo, February 26, 2007, evidence file folios 7521 to 7531). 22 Cf. Communiqué from the Inter-American Commission, March 30, 2007 (evidence file, folio 7520). 9