b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As a preliminary comment, it is worth noting that this provision is sui generis, that is, unique or exclusive to the Convention. It does not appear in these same terms, for example, in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights,8 Article 35 of which addresses the requirement for prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in more general terms and does not consider the restrictive exceptions called for in Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 9 It should also be emphasized that the requirement in the European Convention is to be met prior to initiating action before the European Court of Human Rights, a judicial body, while the American Convention calls for such compliance before the petition is brought to the Commission, which is a non-judicial body. This is significant inasmuch as the Commission’s “main function [...is] to promote respect for and defense of human rights” 10 and in the exercise of this function, “to take action on petitions and other communications pursuant to its authority under the provisions of Articles 44 through 51 of this Convention,”11 including submitting the particular case to the Court.12 Thus, the Commission’s task is to promote and defend human rights, and it can eventually come before the Court to bring an application; in that sense, it does not necessarily share the quality of impartiality that should characterize a judicial body. As a result, the provision of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention is also designed to place limits on the action of this nonjudicial body that could ultimately become a party to a litigation that it may itself initiate. The intent of this provision is to prevent the Commission from taking action before the Nor is it included in the Statute or Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice. In that system, therefore, it would stand strictly as case law. 8 “Admissibility criteria 1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. 2. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that (a) is anonymous; or (b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information. 3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that: (a) the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly illfounded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or (b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal. 4. The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings.” 9 10 Clause 1, Art. 41, of the Convention. 11 Clause Art. 41(f) of the Convention. 12 Art. 51 and 61(1) of the Convention. 3