13 45. The representatives alleged that, when the petition was submitted to the Commission, the investigation had already been underway for four years, although the Code of Criminal Procedure established that this procedure should be concluded within 30 days, with the possibility of obtaining a 30-day extension of this period. Even taking into account the need to take measures in different cities, the Police Investigation had lasted more than 40 months, without making any significant progress, which proves that there was an unjustified delay. In relation to the closure of the Police Investigation, they stated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office had been negligent in its handling of the clear indications of authorship in the case file. In a final intent, they filed a mandado de segurança against the order closing the investigation, but this was denied by the Court of Justice of the state de Paraná. Based on the above, they asked the Court not to admit the preliminary objection. * * * 46. The Court has developed criteria for examining an objection concerning failure to comply with the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies.27 With regard to the formal aspects, given that this objection is a defense available to the State, procedural issues must be verified, such as the procedural moment at which the objection was filed; the facts about which it was filed, and whether the interested party has indicated that the admissibility decision was based on erroneous information or on an aspect that infringed the right to defense. Regarding the material presumptions, the Court examines whether domestic remedies were filed and exhausted in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law and, particularly, whether the State filing the objection specified the domestic remedies that were not exhausted. Furthermore, the State must demonstrate that those remedies were available and were adequate, appropriate and effective. Since this question relates to the admissibility of a petition before the inter-American system, the all aspects of this rule must be verified, even though the analysis of the formal premises prevails over those of a material nature and, at certain times, the latter may be related to the merits of the case.28 47. From the case file before the Inter-American Commission, the Court observes that, in a note of February 5, 2004, the Commission asked the State, for the first time, to present information on the petition within two months and informed it that this did not prejudge the decision on admissibility, pursuant to Article 30(2) and 30(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. On October 12, 2004, the representatives advised the Commission that on May 18, 2004, the competent judge of the Comarca of Loanda had decided that Police Investigation No. 179/98 opened for the death of Sétimo Garibaldi, should be closed. In view of the State’s lack of response, in a note of December 20, 2004, the Commission advised the State that it had opened the case and that it would postpone consideration of the admissibility of the petition until the discussion and decision on merits, as established in Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure. On June 6, 2005, the representatives presented their additional observations on merits. In a note of August 5, 2005, in application of Article 38(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission asked the State to forward its observations on the merits of the case within two months. On June 6, 2006, the State presented its answer to the Inter-American Commission and alleged, among other matters, the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 48. The Court observes that the State filed this preliminary objection before the Commission two years and four months after it had first been asked to submit information 27 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 19, para. 88; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 28, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 42. 28 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 19, para. 91; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 28, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 42.