10 3. Objection based on non-compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. Now, according to the applicable provisions, if the petitioner fails to comply with the obligation to first exhaust the domestic remedies, the State may file the corresponding objection. In this regard, “the Court has stated that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural moment; that is, during the proceeding on admissibility before the Commission.”27 Also, in the Judgment it is affirmed that “[n]evertheless, for a preliminary objection on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be admissible, the State that presents this objection must describe the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted and show that these remedies were available and adequate, suitable and effective,”28 and that “when alleging the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State must indicate on that occasion the remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness.”29 However, the considerations in the Judgment must be complemented by the provisions of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, that: “[w]hen the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.”30 In other words, only if the petitioner contends that he or she has been unable to exhaust the domestic remedies previously, must the State demonstrate that this has not been done, unless this is clearly evident from the case file. In the instant case, the Judgment records that, after the pertinent parts of the alleged victim’s petition had been forwarded to the State on April 18, 2005, granting it two months, later extended for one month more, to present its answer, “[o]n July 18, 2005 [in other words, within the said time frame], the State argued that the case had been submitted before the final decision of the High Court of Justice.”31 That is to say, the State indicated that the domestic remedies had not yet been exhausted, a requirement that, as indicated above, was not mentioned and, above all, not explained, in the corresponding petition. 4. Admissibility of the pertinent petition or communication The time at which the Commission rules on the admissibility of a petition or communication differs entirely from the time that this is presented or completed. This is evident when it is recalled that the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide for an initial review of the petition,32 its initial processing,33 and a proceeding on its 27 Para. 14. 28 Para. 15. 29 Para. 16. 30 Art. 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. 31 Para. 17. 32 Art. 26(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “The Executive Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the study and initial processing of petitions lodged before the Commission that fulfill all the requirements set forth in the Statute and in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure.” Art. 30(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure: “The Commission, through its Executive Secretariat, shall process the petitions that meet the requirements set forth in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure.”