43 i) “In the hearing on merits […] Suyapa Serrano [stated] that her mother gave inconsistent statements. If the Court considers that what Suyapa Serrano said and the confession in this regard are true, it cannot consider that the Supreme Court of Justice has committed any violation of jurisdictional protection and, much less, decide that domestic remedies have been exhausted.” “The Supreme Court of El Salvador is being asked to exhaust domestic remedies with facts that are untrue [...]. If the proceeding is flawed, it cannot be expected that the result, whatever it is, would exhaust remedies or violate jurisdictional protection.” Arguments of the Commission 130. The Commission requested the Court to reject the preliminary objection on failure to exhaust domestic remedies, given that the State wishes the Court to review an issue that was decided definitively by the Commission. In this regard, the Commission indicated that: a) There is an express decision on admissibility in Report No. 31/01, issued on February 23, 2001, which examines compliance with the Convention’s requirements for admissibility. The State’s arguments are timebarred and without grounds. Decisions adopted by the Commission, in keeping with the powers accorded to it by the Convention, should be considered final and non-appealable. They are not susceptible to fresh arguments by the defendant State, which has not provided elements that would justify a different decision by the Court. Furthermore, the Commission reaffirms its decision on the admissibility of the instant case; b) Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention establish that it is for the Commission “to determine the admissibility of a petition.” In accordance with the Court’s case law, the opportunity to file objections to the exhaustion of domestic remedies is during the first stages of the proceeding before the Commission. Also, it is presumed that the State has tacitly waived any objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies, if it has not been filed at that time; c) In the current evolution of the inter-American protection system, the Court should not examine a question of admissibility that has already been decided by the Commission with all procedural guarantees. Review by the Court of matters of admissibility that have been decided in the proceeding before the Commission, such as the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, creates an imbalance between the parties and deviates from the criteria of reasonableness established by the Court for the exercise of its full jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to extend a repetitive task regarding matters of admissibility, given that it has no effect on the protection of human rights, or on the right of the alleged victims to obtain a prompt ruling from the organs of the inter-American system; d) “The judicial investigation into the disappearance of the Serrano Cruz sisters has been unsuccessful[. T]he little or no investigatory activity has generally been a mere formality […] intended to question the identity of the alleged victims rather than clarifying the facts and determining their fate and their whereabouts. There has also been a completely unjustified delay: 22