6 was only filed after the Report on admissibility. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State waived tacitly the presentation of this defense at the opportune procedural moment. 17. Nevertheless, Argentina considered that, based on two circumstances that occurred after the Report on admissibility in this case had been issued (supra para. 1), a change in the purpose of the proceedings underway before the Inter-American Commission had arisen, which would allow it to invoke, for the first time, at a stage other than that of admissibility, the failure to exhaust domestic remedies to claim compensation for damage. The State referred to the decision adopted on June 1, 2004, by the Federal National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber, deciding that the alleged victim had been “subjected to practices of unlawful coercion owing to which he confessed his supposed authorship of kidnapping for ransom [and ordering] the annulment of the criminal action against him and his immediate release”; and the decision adopted on May 30, 2006, by the prosecutor’s office involved in the proceedings to investigate the torture alleged by Mr. Bayarri that “declared the preliminary investigation stage closed and forwarded the case for trial.” 18. The Court notes that both the petition filed by the alleged victim before the InterAmerican Commission on April 5, 1994, and its admissibility on January 19, 2001, preceded the decisions adopted in the domestic jurisdiction that, according to the State, would have resulted in the said change in the procedural purpose (supra paras. 10 and 17). In other words, the mechanisms of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights had already been set in motion when the State adopted measures to repair the alleged violations. This has occurred in other cases heard by the Court.10 19. The Court must reiterate that the State’s international responsibility arises immediately with the international unlawful act attributed to it, although this can only be required before the organs that compose the inter-American system for the protection of human rights after domestic remedies have been exhausted, under the rule established in Article 46 of the American Convention. Based on this principle, when the hearing of the case has already started under the American Convention11 (that is, when its admissibility has been determined), a possible reparation made under domestic law does not prevent either the Commission or the Court from continuing to hear the case, and does not grant the State another procedural opportunity to question the admissibility of the petition, which has already been established. In these circumstances, the effects of possible reparation made in the domestic jurisdiction are a matter that is assessed in both the Inter-American Commission’s and this Court’s analysis of the case and do not constitute a preliminary objection. In general, a procedural action of this nature (preliminary objection) questions the admissibility of a case or the competence ratione personae, materiae, temporis or loci of the Court to hear a specific case or some element of it.12 Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 24. 10 Cf. “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No.73, paras. 82 and 89; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 75; and Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 58. 11 Cf. case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 75; Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No 111, para. 71; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 58. 12 Cf. Gabriela Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of March 18, 2008, considering paragraph 7.