92. Irrespective of the State’s arguments before the Court with regard to the preliminary objection concerning failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the Court agrees with the Commission’s observations, because it notes that, when answering the petition before the Commission, the only mention made by the State of the exhaustion of domestic remedies was that “the delay in the criminal action was justified by the complexity of the case and the changes in the jurisprudence in proceedings relating to subjection to conditions similar to slavery.” The State had presented no further arguments in this regard subsequently. 93. The Court considers that the mention made by the State before the Commission does not comply with the requirements of a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies (supra, para. 89). This is because the State did not specify the domestic remedies that were pending exhaustion or that were underway, or the reasons why it considered that they were appropriate and effective. Therefore, the Court considers the preliminary objection inadmissible. I. Alleged prescription of the claim for reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage before the Commission I.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 94. The State alleged that, if the Court should consider that Brazil did not have appropriate domestic remedies to provide reparation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, it would have to recognize that those claims had prescribed with regard to any possible violations that occurred in 1988, 1992, 1996 and 1997. The claim for reparation of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in relation to presumed violations that took place in Hacienda Brasil Verde in 1989 was made before the Commission 10 years after the facts occurred; that of 1992, 5 years and 8 months later, and that of 1996, 2 years later. In the case of the facts that occurred in 1997, the pecuniary claims were made before the Commission one year and four months after this. Consequently, it should be considered that the claims for pecuniary reparation for those presumed violations had prescribed, because the six-month statute of limitations had already expired when the case was lodged before the Commission. 95. The Commission indicated that the State had based its arguments on the premise that specific domestic remedies relating to compensation had to be exhausted if the objective was to obtain reparation in the international sphere. According to the Commission, it was not necessary to exhaust independent remedies in order to obtain reparation, especially if other mechanisms had been exhausted; thus, the objection should be considered inadmissible. 96. Regarding the prescription of the possibiliy of requiring a criminal investigation, the Commission reiterated that the State had been aware of the situation in Hacienda Brasil Verde, and had failed to conduct a criminal investigation that could be considered effective. In addition, it considered that the analysis of the opportune submission of the petition should be made based on the case as a whole rather than on isolated facts. 97. The representatives indicated that the State’s argument was groundless and, therefore, the objection should be withdrawn, because the State did not file it at the proper procedural moment and had based its arguments on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. I.2. Considerations of the Court 24