11 constitutional reform was pending before the Legislative Poder (to replace the system in force of movie censorship); moreover, as the Executive Power did not share the interpretation of the Judicial Power on the matter, seeking to remedy the situation, the State would be exempt from international responsibility30. 29. The Government of Chile affirmed, in the hearing before the Court referred to, not to have substantive discrepancies, as to the merits, with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), about the need to secure freedom of expression, and so it was that the Government took distance from the Judicial Power in this respect, and sought a solution to the problem raised in the cas d'espèce31. The agent of the State of Chile, Dr. Edmundo Vargas Carreño, commented in a timely way that "the theme of the international responsibility of the State in general is today the most difficult theme of international law"32, - and so it was that, after decades, the ILC has not yet concluded its work of codification on the matter. 30. The theme of the international responsibility of the State, besides being complex, has always seemed to me to be a truly central and fundamental chapter of Public International Law as a whole. The degree of consensus that one succeeds to attain in relation to its multiple aspects, - starting with the very bases of the configuration of such responsibility, - appears to me as ultimately revealing the degree of evolution and cohesion of the international community itself. Despite the undeniable and high juridical quality which they managed to give to their presentations in the memorable public hearing before the Court on the merits of the case of "The Last Temptation of Christ", both the IACHR and the Government of Chile, in their oral arguments, as well as, in their declarations, both the witnesses and experts proposed by the IACHR and the experts originally presented by the Chilean Government and convened by the Court, - I cannot omit to formulate some precisions which seem to me indeed necessary, given the complexity and high relevance of the matter dealt with. 31. Firstly, the rule of prior exhaustion of the remedies of domestic law, as set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention, encompasses the available, adequate and effective judicial remedies, in conformity with recognized principles of international law, which the formulation of the rule in that provision of the Convention refers to. If one were to pretend unduly to extend the scope of such rule to a project of constitutional reform, or of legislative reform, it would be transformed into an unsurmountable obstacle to the petitioners, besides having its juridical content distorted. 32. Secondly, if interposed, the objection of non-exhaustion ought to be definitively resolved in limine litis, that is, at the stage of admissibility of the case, and not in the proceedings on the merits of it. This is, in my view, a question of pure admissibility, as I have consistently sustained, within this Court, since 199133. In the last years, the Inter-American Court itself has correctly established, as from its Judgments on 30 . Cf. IACtHR, Transcripción de los Alegatos Finales en el Caso "La Última Tentación de Cristo" Audiencia Pública sobre el Fondo Celebrada el 18 y 19 de Noviembre de 1999, San José of Costa Rica, pp. 68-69, 70, 76-77 and 79-80. 31 . 32 Ibid., pp. 76-77 and 79. . Ibid., p. 84. . Cf. my Separate Opinions in the Judgments on Preliminary Objections in the cases Gangaram Panday versus Suriname (1991, Series C, n. 12), Loayza Tamayo versus Peru (1996, Series C, n. 25), and Castillo Páez versus Peru (1996, Series C, n. 24), as well as my Dissenting Opinion in the case Genie Lacayo versus Nicaragua (Resolution of 18.05.1995), pars. 11-17, in: OAS, Informe Anual de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos - 1995, pp. 85-87. 33