5 Court to determine the existence of the State’s responsibility for the facts denounced,” and it questioned the Inter-American Commission’s decision to submit the case to the Court. 12. The Inter-American Commission indicated that “the purpose of this case continues to be to obtain a decision on the State’s international responsibility as a result of all the violations committed against Mr. Bayarri. It is not because any of the violations have ended that the States ceases to be responsible for them, or the victim ceases to have a right to adequate reparation.” The Commission stated that, in any case, the State had not alleged before the Commission during the admissibility stage of the petition the failure to exhaust domestic remedies because an action seeking compensation for damage had not been filed; consequently, it had not had the opportunity to give an opinion in this regard. The Commission advised that the “State had alleged the failure to exhaust such remedies after the Reports on admissibility and merits [had been issued]” and, as stated in the application, this argument was taken into consideration when deciding to lodge the case before the Court (supra para. 1). In addition, it stated that, despite the above, the administrative jurisdiction is not the appropriate channel for remedying the violations committed against Mr. Bayarri, “so that, in a case such as this, it is not necessary to exhaust it as a condition for admissibility.” 13. The representatives indicated various procedural and factual obstacles that would prevent the alleged victim and his family group from claiming reparations under the administrative jurisdiction or under any other Argentine jurisdiction, with “any possibility of success.” 14. The State acknowledges that, before the Inter-American Commission, it had alleged “the change of the procedural purpose and the consequent failure to exhaust domestic remedies” available to claim compensation for damages, when responding to the Report provided for by Article 50 of the Convention and not during the admissibility stage of the petition. 15. Indeed, a review of the processing of the petition in this case before the InterAmerican Commission shows that, after the Report on admissibility had been issued, the State informed the Commission that “[t]here had been a substantial change in the circumstances of the instant case, both with regard to the procedural situation [of Mr. Bayarri] and to the investigation that was underway in the domestic jurisdiction into the alleged torture of which he had been a victim” and, in this regard, the State indicated that “[t]he presumed violations alleged by the petitioner in the instant case had found a satisfactory response using the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction.”7 Furthermore, in its note of July 12, 2007, following the issue of the Report on merits (supra para. 1), the State advised the Commission that Juan Carlos Bayarri had not filed a complaint against the State seeking compensation for the damage he alleges he has suffered.8 16. According to the Court’s case law,9 the State’s allegation of failure to exhaust domestic remedies “in order to obtain a pecuniary compensation” is time-barred, because it State’s brief with final arguments (merits file, tome VI, folio 1479). The State submitted a copy of judicial decisions handed down by Argentine high courts as evidence of the effectiveness of such remedies. 7 Cf. the State’s brief of September 1, 2005 (merits file, attachments to the application, appendix 3, tome VII, folios 2616 and 2617). 8 Cf. the State’s brief of July 12, 2007 (merits file, attachments to the application, appendix 3, tome VIII, folio 3018). 9 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 18; and Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative