principles of international law.7 For a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be admissible, the State that files this objection must specify the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and prove that those remedies were available, appropriate, suitable and effective.8 23. The Court notes that this objection was filed during the admissibility procedure before the Commission; therefore, it was filed at the proper procedural moment. The Commission rejected this objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in its Admissibility Report of October 13, 2004, indicating that the administrative proceedings for damages that had been underway for more than four years had still reached a conclusion at first instance. Therefore, there had been an unjustified delay in the administration of justice that provided grounds for invoking the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention.9 The Court observes that, when the Commission was deciding on the admissibility of the petition, Mr. Jenkins had already filed the action claiming damages 10 and, according to the Commission, this had not been decided owing to an unjustified delay. The Court considers that the debate on the alleged unjustified delay in the investigation of the facts of this case entails an assessment of the State’s actions in relation to its obligation to ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention that are alleged to have been violated, which is a matter that is closely related to the merits of the dispute.11 Consequently, the Court considers that this argument by the State must be considered together with the merits and not as a preliminary objection. C. Alteration of the procedural purpose of the case by the Commission c.1 Arguments of the parties and the Commission 24. As a third preliminary objection, the State argued that the Inter-American Commission had altered the purpose of the proceedings. It indicated that the violations de facto and de jure relating to the eventual responsibility of the State which constituted the purpose of the case before the Commission were strictly limited to the issue of the preventive detention, the judicial remedies filed by the presumed victim and the alleged lack of diligence in the investigation into functional criminal liability. It argued that the Commission had included the considerations concerning the proceedings for damages when analyzing the objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies, rather than in the context of the characterization of the potentially internationally wrongful acts alleged in the petition. Consequently, the State asserted that the issue of the contentious proceedings for damages and respect for judicial guarantees and judicial protection in this regard did not form part of this litigation. 25. The Commission argued that this objection sought to call into question the Commission’s fundamental ruling on the State’s international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1), and therefore considered that this contention did not constitute a preliminary objection. Second, it recalled that neither the American Convention nor the Commission’s Rules of Procedure established that the purpose of the case should be delimited in the Admissibility Report. In addition, it stressed that the unreasonable delay in the administrative proceedings did form part of the facts of the case in the procedure before the Commission, at both the admissibility and the merits stage. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 25. 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 26. 8 9 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 50/04, petition 12,056 of October 13, 2004 (evidence file, folio 60). Cf. Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, para. 25 and Case of Duque v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 26, 2016. Series C No. 310, para. 34. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 96, and Case of Gutiérrez Hernández et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 24, 2017. Series C No. 339, para. 24. 11 8