14 regarding the lack of appropriateness and effectivity of the application for amparo in the circumstances of this case; that is, to contest a decision of the high court that confirmed the declaration of extinction of the criminal action for causes that could be attributed to the organs of justice in the criminal proceedings against the physician who had performed the tubal ligation. Based on the arguments of the petitioner that were not contested by the State, the Commission concluded that the petitioner had exhausted the ordinary remedies of the criminal justice system and that, taking into account the case law of the Bolivian Constitutional Court, the filing of the application for amparo would have had “few probabilities of success.”21 Thus, this Court concludes that, even though the State filed the preliminary objection in the procedure before the Commission and indicated the remedy that, in its opinion, had not been exhausted, it failed to comply with the burden of proof by proving that it was adequate, appropriate and effective at the proper procedural opportunity, because the decision cited by the State in the procedure before the Commission referred to aspects such as the abandonment of the dispute and the time frames to justify the failure to attend a hearing, which have no relationship to the facts of this case. 37. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the State modified its arguments before this Court. Indeed, in the proceedings before the Court, the State focused its arguments on indicating that the application for amparo was admissible to reverse the extinction of the criminal action based on the maximum duration of the proceedings when the dilatory actions were caused by the defendant and, in this regard, cited Constitutional Judgment No. SC 2009/2010-R of November 3. Subsequently, in its final arguments, the State alleged that, even though the facts of the precedents cited did not correspond to the facts of the instant case, in general it could be concluded that the application for amparo was appropriate to annual a decision on the extinction of the criminal proceedings. To this end, it cited Constitutional Judgment No. 1529/2011-R of October 11, 2011, that made it necessary to weigh the right of the accused not to be subjected to criminal proceedings indefinitely and the right of the presumed victim to obtain justice in the specific case. The Court notes that the said precedent is dated after the Admissibility Report and is based on a provision of the new Constitution, so that the Commission could not have taken it into account when issuing a decision on admissibility. In this regard, and in relation to the dispute between the parties and the Commission concerning the possibility of the State changing the grounds for its arguments during the admissibility procedure in relation to those outlined in the proceedings before the Court, this Court recalls its consistent case law that the arguments concerning the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage should correspond to those alleged before the Court.22 38. The Court emphasizes that the State, when arguing failure to exhaust domestic resources, has the burden not only of specifying at the proper opportunity the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted, but also of demonstrating that those remedies were available and were appropriate and effective. In this case, the State did not meet this burden of proof opportunely. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 39. Before examining the pertinent facts and the application of the norms of the American Convention to those facts, the Court must include some preliminary consideration on the determination of the presumed victims, the delimitation of the factual framework, and the presumed violations of rights alleged by the representative. Admissibility Report No. 40/08 of July 23, 2008, para. 73 (file of the procedure before the Commission, volume II, folios 268 to 270). 21 Cf. Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 29, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 28. 22