13 1109 through 1113 of the Civil Code for the prejudicial effects of the breach of the general obligation not to cause damage to others. The State also argued that the alleged victims should have exhausted this domestic jurisdiction, especially in view of the fact that the reparations they are requesting pertain exclusively to pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and they have refrained from requesting possible violation of article 10 of the American Convention.34 Finally, the State cited the Commission's “Correa Belisle” case and noted that the victim had chosen, exercised and directed the claim for redress through this same domestic proceeding. 40. The Commission, in turn, stated that although the objection had been raised at the proper stage of the proceedings, the State had not met the requirement of proving that the remedies being offered were appropriate and effective. The Commission therefore argued that during the admissibility stage, the State had not explained specifically what remedies could have been pursued by the victims, what rules governed them, or what arguments and evidence suggested that they were in fact appropriate and effective. In any case, the Commission held that the State's international obligation to redress victims of human rights violations was a direct and primary responsibility, that is, it pertained directly to the State and must not be subject to whether or not the alleged victims had attempted beforehand to pursue personal actions against such agents, regardless of what the domestic legislation may provide. The Commission also noted that a requirement for further exhaustion of a motion for damages, after all the remedies available in the criminal jurisdiction had been lodged and were awaiting resolution, would be unreasonable and would make access to the interAmerican system an impossible dream. 41. Representatives Vega and Sommer said that during the admissibility stage, it had been proven that all the domestic remedies available in Argentina had been exhausted. Representatives De Vita and Cueto pointed out that the State’s assertions were unsustainable because the applicants they represented had availed themselves of all possible solutions available through the domestic system; moreover, the provisions of Civil Law have no relevance to human rights violations protected by the Convention. They added that the reference to the “Correa Belisle” case was misguided because it had ended in a friendly settlement, while in the instant case, no such proposal had been received from the government at any time, and the decision by the Supreme Court had closed off all possibilities of pursuing satisfaction domestically. Finally, the Inter-American Defenders noted that the State had tacitly chosen to waive the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies as a defense, having cited it in general terms and with no further explanation, and therefore felt that the State was barred from raising it in the final phase of the proceedings before the interAmerican system. C.2 Considerations of the Court 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that for a petition or complaint filed before the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 or 45 of the Convention, domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of International Law. 35 Along these same lines, the Court has sustained that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to 34 Article 10. Right to Compensation. Every person has the right to be compensated in accordance with the law in the event he has been sentenced by a final judgment through a miscarriage of justice. 35 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, par. 85, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 20.