14 misapplying the provisions of the Convention. Such action could affect the juridical value of the report but would not affect the admissibility of the application because the wording of the Convention in no way conditions such filing on failure to publish the report required under Article 51. 79. It follows that, although the requirements of Article 50 and 51 have not been fully complied with, this has in no way impaired the rights of the Government and the case should therefore not be ruled inadmissible on those grounds. 80. Likewise, the reasoning developed from paragraph 34 onwards leads to the conclusion that the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the procedures set out in Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention. XII 81. Moreover, the Government has challenged the admissibility of the petition before the Commission on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been previously exhausted. 82. The Government did not expressly raise this issue until its note of December 1, 1983, when it requested reconsideration of Resolution 32/83. It then asserted that the remedies had been incorrectly pursued by the petitioner. By note of May 29, 1984, in response to the Government's request for reconsideration, the Commission, in turn, asked whether the domestic legal remedies had been exhausted." Finally, Resolution 24/86 pointed out that "the evidence presented in this case, both that submitted by the Government and that offered by the petitioner, shows that the alleged victim or those who claim in his name and on his behalf did not have access to the domestic legal remedies of Honduras or where prevented from exhausting them." 83. In its submissions to the Court, the Government declared that "the petitioner tacitly accepted the non-exhaustion" and that he "had not filed any criminal charges." It also argued that "a decision on a writ of habeas corpus does not necessarily mean that domestic remedies have been exhausted." The Government also asserted that Honduran law provides due process of law for the rights involved and that recourse to the courts by the family and friends of Saul Godínez Cruz proved that they had access to them. The Government reiterated this position at the hearing. 84. Both in its submissions of March 20, 1987 and at the hearing, the Commission argued that domestic remedies had been exhausted, because those pursued had been unsuccessful. It specifically referred to a criminal complaint that was never decided. Even if this argument were not accepted, the Commission asserted that the exhaustion of domestic remedies was not required because there were no effective judicial remedies to forced disappearances in Honduras in the period in which the events occurred. The Commission believes that the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 46 (2) of the Convention were applicable because during that period there was no due process of law, the petitioner was denied access to such remedies, and there was an unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment. 85. The Commission maintains that the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be decided jointly with the merits of this case, rather than in the preliminary phase. Its position is based on two considerations. First, the Commission alleges that this matter is inseparably tied to the merits, since the lack of due process and of effective domestic remedies in the Honduran judiciary during the period when the events occurred is proof of a government practice supportive of the forced disappearance of persons, the case before the Court being but one concrete example of that practice. The Commission also argues that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is a requirement for the admissibility of petitions presented to the Commission, but not a prerequisite