B. Failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 20. The State pointed out that Mr. Olivera opted to have recourse to an administrative disciplinary proceeding, pursuing a remedy that “was not the most appropriate for the State to settle the dispute at the domestic level.” It added that other suitable remedies were available to protect the right to equality and non-discrimination, honor and dignity, personal liberty and freedom of expression invoked, such as (i) the process of constitutional amparo, (ii) the filing of a parallel criminal complaint for discrimination, and (iii) the filing of a civil suit to demand compensation for damages. 21. The Commission argued that the alleged victim made use of the available administrative and judicial remedies to address his claim regarding the violation of consumer rights due to his unequal treatment based on the expression of his sexual orientation. It recalled that it is not the practice of the organs of the inter-American system to require the exhaustion of domestic remedies, separately and autonomously, for each of the effects derived from a main violation, since this would not meet the standards of reasonableness. 22. The representatives pointed out that (i) the preliminary objection was timebarred because the State used arguments that differed from those originally presented before the Commission; (ii) the State did not specify clearly which of the mechanisms that were not exhausted would be appropriate; (iii) the alleged victim exhausted the appropriate administrative and judicial remedies to sanction acts of discrimination against a consumer, and (iv) the State had ample opportunity, at various stages, to refer to and rectify the alleged violations of Mr. Olivera’s human rights. B.2 Considerations of the Court 23. The Court recalls that Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 and 45 of the Convention, the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.22 However, this means that such remedies must not only exist formally, but also that they must be adequate and effective and comply with the requirements set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 23 24. Accordingly, the Court notes that the State filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the admissibility stage of the petition, through Report N° 1132013-JUS/PPES of July 15, 2013, in which it indicated that the appropriate remedy was 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 18, 2022. Series C No. 468, para. 24. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 24. 10