16 the case is analyzed and established, the principle of preclusion is applied, except in extraordinary situations where there is a serious error that affects the right to defense of the parties. In the present case, the State did not identify a serious error in the proceedings before the Commission, nor did it demonstrate any detriment to its right to defense. In the six years that elapsed wherein the case remained in the admissibility stage, the State had several opportunities to respond to the arguments of the representatives and to the concerns of the Commission, reason for which there is no basis to reexamine the decision of the Commission in its admissibility report. In addition, the representatives reminded that the State should present the objection on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies before the Inter-American Commission rules on the admissibility of the case. Prior to the issuance of the Admissibility Report No. 33/01, the State only argued the non-exhaustion of two domestic remedies: a) the Ordinary Action, in which, according to Brazil, the objection of undue delay should not be applied, and b) the habeas data action, that had not been filed. Notwithstanding, in the processing before the Court, the State reiterated the relevant arguments regarding the abovementioned Ordinary Action, and in addition, other legal actions related to the facts complained of in the present case, such as the Noncompliance Action No. 153, the Public Civil Suit, and other measures which were or could be adopted in order to fulfill the requested measures of reparation. For the representatives, the State did not argue a lack of exhaustion of the mentioned remedies at the opportune procedural moment, and as such, this preliminary objection should be considered time-barred and not admitted by the Court. 37. In a secondary manner, the representatives noted the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies addressed by the State. In regard to the Ordinary Action, they argued that twenty-seven years have passed since the action initiated and despite the final decision, “it did not result in the awaited effects, and did not constitute, therefore[,] an effective remedy for the clarification of the facts of the complaint.” They noted that the appropriate measure of reparation to remedy the alleged violations was via a criminal remedy. Nevertheless, given that it pertained to a case of enforced disappearance, due to the Amnesty Law, the State did not initiate an investigation designed to ascertain the facts, identify those responsible, and guarantee justice, which was not denied by the State. The interpretation in force of the Amnesty Law had a direct effect on the omissions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office regarding the facts of the present case and inhibited the next of kin from filing a complaint in order to initiate a proceeding to establish the corresponding criminal action. Lastly, the representatives noted that, contrary to that specified in the jurisprudence of the Court, Brazil identified other remedies, but did not demonstrate the availability or effectiveness of said remedies in repairing the alleged violations in the case, such as the Noncompliance Action No. 153 or the Public Civil Suit, which was presented after the issuance of the admissibility analysis emitted by the Commission. 2. The Court’s considerations 38. The Court has established in a consistent manner that an objection to the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court based on the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies should be presented at the appropriate procedural moment,37 namely, in the admissibility stage of the proceedings before the Commission.38 In this 37 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Da Costa Cadogan, supra note 35, para. 18, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 19.