15 C. Objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies C.1. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 40. The State filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, arguing that the alleged victims did not file habeas corpus petitions in any of the cases of disappearances or illegal detentions, nor did they have recourse to the National Compensation Program (PNR), as an administrative remedy created to provide individual and/or collective compensation to civilian victims of human rights violations that occurred during the internal armed conflict, which includes material and psychological support to the victims and their next of kin. 41. The Commission argued that the present preliminary objection is time-barred, since “at the admissibility stage, the State did not allege that the two remedies mentioned in its written response should have been exhausted […].” In the admissibility stage before the Commission, Guatemala only alleged that “criminal proceedings [were] pending,” and once “in the merits stage, the State alleged that a group of victims had received compensation from the PNR.” After the issuance of the Merits Report, Guatemala “did not specify […] the amounts that the victims’ families would have received and their connection with the facts and violations declared […].” Consequently, it held that the State’s arguments on this point do not constitute a preliminary objection and should be taken into account by the Court when determining the corresponding reparations.” 42. The representatives indicated that this preliminary objection should be declared “inadmissible […] because the State’s obligation to investigate ex officio is separate from whether a complaint is being filed […].” They pointed out that the relatives of the alleged victims are the ones who initiated the investigations; however, the authorities have not clarified the facts or determined the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. In addition, they pointed out that the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies should be raised at the admissibility stage before the Commission. C.2. Considerations of the Court 43. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states that in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Commission, pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that the remedies under domestic jurisdiction have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. In this regard, the Court has held that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the proper procedural moment, that is, during the admissibility proceeding before the Commission. When alleging failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it is incumbent upon the State to specify which remedies have not yet been exhausted, and to demonstrate that these were available, adequate, suitable and effective. 23 In this regard, the Court has stated that it is not up to the Court or the Commission to identify ex officio which domestic remedies have yet to be exhausted. Thus, it does not fall to these international bodies to rectify the lack of precision in the State’s arguments. 24 44. In its answering brief, the State submitted to the Court the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies based on two arguments: i) the existence of and failure to exhaust the remedies of habeas corpus, and ii) the existence of and failure to exhaust the administrative 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2016. Series C No. 316, para. 25. 24 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 24.