have been exhausted or that it was not compulsory to do so, that the Commission should rule in its admissibility report. 81. The instant case reveals that the facts relating to the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, are: a) The petition lodged with the Commission on July 17, 1995, cites the exception established in Article 46(2)(c)) of the Convention indicating that although, “theoretically, there are remedies in the laws of Guatemala,” “it is evident that the practice of violating the rights of members of the labor movement is at least tolerated, if not directly supported by the Guatemalan government,” so that it is “clear that, in reality, there are no legal measures within the Guatemalan system of justice to resolve this matter.” b) The State, in its response of September 27, 1996, to the forwarding of the petition on June 17, 1996, asserted that “the State’s representatives will describe the progress made and the relevant information that has been compiled to date during the hearing,” scheduled for October 10 that year. Subsequently, in a communication of June 13, 1997, the State advised “that the investigation [of the case …] continued and it was hoped to provide new evidence determining the individualization and punishment of those responsible.” Consequently, the State failed to file the objection of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies at the proper time and in an appropriate manner, and c) The Commission adopted the Report on Admissibility and Merits on March 21, 2017, and in this, although it reiterated its criteria that the admissibility of the petition was subject to whether, at that time, the requirements established in Article 46 of the Convention had been met, it also indicated that it was “clear that, since 1996, no investigative measures had been taken.” Hence, ultimately, the Commission took into consideration the situation at that date when taking a decision on the admissibility of the petition, and proceeded accordingly. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the undersigned voted in favor of the first operative paragraph of the judgment rejecting the preliminary objection filed by the State concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies.67 Eduardo Vio Grossi Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 67 Supra, footnote 2. 19