13 complaints filed at the domestic level and the poor judicial activity in the investigations are elements of the merits of the case subjected to the Court’s consideration; therefore any discussion related to that issue must be addressed as part of the merits of the case. 42. The Court has already developed clear guidelines for the analysis of an objection regarding an alleged failure of exhaustion of domestic remedies.27 This rule must be analyzed considering the formal and material conditions, established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and in the pertinent regulatory provisions of the Inter-American system that reinforces complements and contributes to the protection offered by the domestic legislation of States Party. As to the formal conditions, considering that this objection is a defense available to the State, the mere procedural issues should be verified, such as the procedural moment the objection was filed (whether it was timely alleged); the facts on which the objection is based and whether the interested party has alleged that the decision on admissibility was based on mistaken information or has been prevented from exercising the right to defense. Regarding the material conditions, the Court shall verify whether the domestic remedies have been filed and exhausted according to the generally known principled of International Law: in particular, whether the State filing this objection has specified the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and also the State must demonstrate that such remedies were at the victim’s disposal and were appropriate, suitable and effective. Considering that this is a question of the admissibility of a petition before the Inter-American system, the conditions of this rule need to be verified insofar as it is alleged, even though the analysis of the formal requisites takes precedence over the material conditions and, on certain occasions, the latter are related to the merits of the case.28 43. In the instant case, as is evident from the case file of the processing of the petition before the Commission, on June 27, 2003 the Commission received the initial petition and on July 3, 2003, it acknowledged receipt to the petitioners and registered it under number 487-03. Then, on August 19, 2003 the Commission forwarded the copy of the petition to the State for the State to submit its response within 60 days, under the terms of Article 30.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. There is no record indicating that the Commission would have extended such term. The Report on Admissibility Nº 7/04 was adopted by the Commission on February 27, 2004 and it was notified to the State on March 11, that same year, moment in which the Commission informed the State that the petition was registered under case number 12.442, invited the State to submit the observations on the merits within the term of two months and invited the parties to reach a friendly settlement. Nevertheless, as affirmed by the State itself, the State would have sent the first communication to the Commission on July 25, 2005 during the processing of the merits of 27 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brasil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 51; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 64. 28 Thus, when certain exceptions to the rule of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies are invoked, such as the ineffectiveness of such remedies or the lack of due process of law, not only is it contended that the victim is under no obligation to pursue such remedies, but, indirectly, the State in question is also charged with a new violation of the obligations assumed under the Convention. Thus, the question of domestic remedies is closely tied to the merits of the case. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, supra nota 27; para. 91; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. Therefore, on several occasions, the Tribunal has analyzed the arguments relating to said preliminary objection together with other issues on the merits. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 27, para. 96; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 20, para. 19; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 34; Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Perú. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C. No. 41, para. 53 and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 45.