15 "notwithstanding the failure to exhaust domestic legal remedies" the President of the Republic "gave specific instructions to the various competent governmental bodies to launch a thorough investigation that would convincingly establish the whereabouts or passage in transit" of the persons referred to in the instant case. In addition, the tenth preambular clause of Resolution 16/84, while recognizing that "the petitioner did not file suit before the judicial system of Honduras and has, therefore, not availed himself of the courts of that State," also noted that "in the Commission's opinion it is not necessary to exhaust the domestic legal remedies, since the petitioner's actions before the various governments are sufficient to satisfy this requirement, especially given the period that has elapsed since the alleged acts occurred." In requesting reconsideration of the above Resolution, the Foreign Minister of Honduras in turn pointed out, in a note of October 29, 1984, that "with the firm conviction that --as indicated in paragraph 10 of the Resolution-- the remedies provided on the national plane have not been exhausted, I have decided to forward all the documentation on this deplorable matter to the Investigatory Commission so that it might reopen the investigation and verify the truth of the allegations." Finally, in Resolution 23/86, the Commission affirmed that "the evidence presented by both the Government of Honduras and the petitioner lead to the conclusion that the alleged victim or those who represent him did not have access to the remedies set out in the domestic legislation of Honduras or were prevented from exhausting them." 80. In its submissions to the Court, the Government stated that the petitioner had not come before any of the courts of Honduras and had even expressly declined to do so. In the Government's opinion, the failure to have recourse to domestic remedies was therefore "due to a voluntary act of the petitioner." The Government also stressed that paragraph 10 of Resolution 16/84 expressly recognizes the failure to meet this requirement, which is not fulfilled by representations made before various foreign governments. The Government reiterated this position at the public hearing. 81. Both in its submissions of March 20, 1987 and at the hearing, the Commission argued that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was not required because of the total ineffectiveness of the judiciary. The Commission emphasized that in the period when the acts allegedly took place, not a single writ of habeas corpus "resulted in the release of anyone who had been illegally detained by governmental bodies." The Commission also asserted that the exhaustion of domestic legal remedies is not required when the violation of the right protected is the result of repeated state practice. It also argued that at least two of the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set out in Article 46 (2) where applicable, because during that period there was no due process of law, nor was the petitioner allowed access to those remedies. 82. The Commission maintains that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be decided jointly with the merits of this case, rather than in the preliminary phase. Its position is based on two considerations. First, the Commission alleges that this matter is inseparably tied to the merits, since the lack of due process and of effective domestic remedies in the Honduran judiciary during the period when the events occurred is proof of a government practice supportive of the forced disappearance of persons, the case before the Court being but one concrete example of that practice. The Commission also argues that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is a requirement for the admissibility of petitions presented to the Commission, but not a prerequisite for filing applications with the Court and that, therefore, the Government's objection should not be ruled upon as a preliminary objection. 83. The Court must reiterate that, although the exhaustion of domestic remedies is a requirement for admissibility before the Commission, the determination of whether such remedies have been pursued and exhausted or whether one is dealing with one of the exceptions to such requirement is a matter involving the interpretation or application of the Convention. As such, it falls within the contentious jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 62 (1) of the Convention (supra 34). The proper moment for the Court to rule on an objection concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies will depend on the special circumstances of each case.