10 But, in addition, if it is accepted that compliance with the said requirement may take place at a time subsequent to the lodging of the pertinent petition or its completion, this could constitute an incentive to lodge petitions or communications before the Commission even when the said requirement has not been met, in the hope that it will be possible to comply with it prior to the Commission’s ruling on their admissibility, which, evidently, could not have been the intention of, or foreseen by, the States Parties to the Convention or, at least, there is no record in the relevant documentation that they considered this. Also, as regards the spirit that inspired the provisions in question, it should be noted that, if the principle that the said requirement must be met when lodging or completing the petition concerned is not followed and, to the contrary, the thesis is adopted that this time frame would be determined by the moment when the Commission rules on the admissibility of the corresponding petition, this could lead to overtly unfair and arbitrary situations. Indeed, since the time limit for the petitions or communications lodged before the Commission to comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies would then depend, not on the petitioner or applicant, but on the Commission’s decision on their admissibility or inadmissibility, it is clear that this time limit would not be the same in all cases and would not be known in advance as is essential. It is evident that this possibility could not have been the intention of the States Parties to the Convention, nor can the said provisions be interpreted in a sense that makes this feasible. All things considered, logically, for the petition to be admitted it is the petitioner who must prove that the petition or communication complies with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or, otherwise, ask to be exempted from this obligation. And, obviously, this issue must be broached in the petition itself. In the instant case, this did not occur because, according to the Judgment itself, “[r]egarding the lodging of the initial petition before the Commission, … [the Court] has verified that, indeed, the alleged victim forwarded this document on August 22, 2003, and that, at that time, the final judgment in the criminal proceedings against him had not been delivered, as this was handed down on November 5, 2003.”26 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 27 the Commission.” 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, 26 Para. 17. 27 Para. 14.