evidently before their submission – to exhaust the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction or the impossibility of doing this, which must be duly substantiated. This regulatory requirement, which reflects the interpretation that the Commission itself makes of the articles of the Convention, is of the greatest relevance and it is compliance with this that permits litigation to be established subsequently on the specific case. B. The forwarding of the petition to the State concerned 61. Also, regarding the forwarding of the petition to the State concerned, the Commission’s Rules of Procedure confirm the said interpretation; that is, that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is a requirement that must be met before the petition is lodged before the Commission and must be reflected in the petition submitted to the Commission. 62. Indeed, Article 30(1) and (2) of the said Rules of Procedure establishes: “Admissibility procedure. 1. The Commission, through its Executive Secretariat, shall process the petitions that meet the requirements set forth in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure. 2. For this purpose, it shall forward the relevant parts of the petition to the State in question. The request for information made to the State shall not constitute a prejudgment with regard to any decision the Commission may adopt on the admissibility of the petition.57 63. In this regard, it should be recalled that what is forwarded to the State in question, as decided by the Commission, should be the relevant part of the petition itself and this, provided it meets with, among others, the requirement for information on the measures taken to exhaust the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction or the impossibility of doing so. In other words, the forwarding of the petition is in order if it complies with the said requirement. 64. Consequently, this rule does not establish that this requirement must or may be met at a time following the submission of the petition. Also, it should be noted that the said forwarding should be of the petition as lodged and, therefore, it should include the reference to the said requirement. To the contrary, the State would be unable to file the respective objection. C. The State’s answer and the observations of the parties 65. That said, according to the Article 30(3), first phrase, and 30(5) of the said Rules of Procedure: “3. The State shall submit its response within three months from the date the request is transmitted. … 5. Prior to deciding upon the admissibility of the petition, the Commission may invite the parties to submit additional observations, either in writing or in a hearing, as provided for in Chapter VI of these Rules of Procedure.”58 66. Obviously, the State’s response to the document forwarded and the additional observations of the parties in answer to the Commission’s invitation, must refer to the pertinent petition, which – let me repeat – must meet all the established requirements, including that of providing information on the measures taken to exhaust the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction – prior to its submission. To this end, it should be underlined that this rule expressly mentions that “[p]rior to deciding upon the admissibility of the petition, the 57 Art. 30(1) and (2). 58 Art. 30(3) and (5). 15