14 exhaust domestic remedies should be lodged at the correct stage of the proceedings, that is, during the admissibility state before the Commission.36 43. The rule on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived in the interest of the State, relieving it of the need to face international proceedings before resolving the dispute in the domestic sphere.37 In order for a preliminary objection on failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be admitted, however, the State raising such an objection needs to spell out the particular domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted and demonstrate that they were in fact available and were appropriate, fitting and effective.38 44. In this sense, if the State has alleged the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it must indicate, at the appropriate stage, what remedies must be exhausted and their effectiveness.39 It is not the task of the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted. The Court insists that international bodies are not expected to rectify a lack of precision in the State’s arguments. 40 45. It could be understood in this regard that the objection was raised at the right time in the process, that is, during the admissibility stage before the Commission. At that time, the State argued in general terms, in communications dated December 28, 1999, September 19, 2000, April 18 and October 2, 2001, that the petitioners failed to exhaust certain remedies in the civil and administrative jurisdiction for seeking the damages to which they claimed entitlement, but instead had exhausted only the domestic remedies in the military criminal processes lodged against them. 46. Moreover, in the procedure before the Court, the State had put forward detailed arguments in its answering brief concerning what procedure the applicants should undertake in the civil and administrative jurisdiction to obtain the damages they were claiming. It cited provisions of the Argentine Civil Code, Law No. 340 and its amendments, and the National Civil and Commercial Procedural Code under which the applicants could have chosen to file a class action suit for damages in the Federal Administrative Contentious jurisdiction. The State argued that this had not happened. 47. This Court notes that in the proceedings before the Court, the State gave a detailed listing of the remedies available for the applicants to lodge a domestic claim for compensation, but it had not supplied this body of evidence in the procedure before the Commission. Instead, in the admissibility stage, it had made only general mention that the petitioners had not exhausted domestic remedies for compensation as argued, but did not specify what they were; therefore, it also failed to demonstrate whether these remedies were available and appropriate, fitting and effective at the correct stage of the proceedings. The assertions made by the State in the proceedings before this Court on the specific remedies available for redress are therefore time-barred. 36 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, par. 85, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 20. 37 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 61, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, par. 30. 38 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, par. 88 and 91, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, par. 20. 39 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, par. 88 and 89, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, par. 30. 40 Cfr. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, par. 23, and Case of expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, par. 30.