11 free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all those subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). Therefore, when exceptions to the rule of failure to exhaust domestic remedies are invoked, such as the ineffectiveness of such remedies or the inexistence of due process, not only is it being alleged that the victim is not obliged to file such remedies but, indirectly, the State is being accused of a new violation of the obligations it has assumed under the Convention. In these circumstances, the issue of domestic remedies borders on the merits of the case.7 35. Consequently, on repeated occasions, the Court has examined the arguments on this preliminary objection together with the other merits of the case.8 36. Since a preliminary examination of the effectiveness of the action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen would mean a ruling on the compatibility of this remedy with the American Convention, which could eventually result in the determination of a violation of the Convention, the Court considers it essential to examine the arguments of the parties in this respect with the merits of the case when determining whether Article 25 of the American Convention has been violated. D) FOURTH PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Actions of the Inter-American Commission in the processing of the case 37. As preliminary objections, the State raised six issues related to the actions of the Inter-American Commission in this case. It considered that the Inter-American Commission: 1. Should not have processed the alleged victim’s request for precautionary measures; 2. Should have finalized the initial processing of the petition based on the information that the State provided when responding to the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission, and after learning that the alleged victim did not present his candidacy during the registration stage of the electoral process; 3. Should have ruled on the admissibility of the petition; however, without sufficient and clear grounds, it ordered the transfer of the matter of admissibility to the consideration of the merits of the petition; 4. Should have declared the inadmissibility of the petition based on Article 47 of the American Convention, even Report on admissibility and merits No. 113/06; 5. Infringed Article 50 of the American Convention by adopting Report on admissibility and merits No. 113/06; and 6. Did not comply with the requirements of its own Rules of Procedure to lodge the case before the Inter-American Court. 38. The Court will establish the relevant criteria for examining the issues raised, it will summarize the arguments of the parties and, lastly, it will decide those issues. 39. The Court considers it necessary to indicate that, although neither the American 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 6, para. 91; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 6, para. 96; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C. No. 41, para. 53; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 45.