10 the jurisdiction of the Court and persist even after that date, without transgressing the principle of non-retroactivity,6 and also when the wrongful events occur subsequent to the date of recognition of jurisdiction. 46. Therefore, the Court is competent to hear the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as of the date the State recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, and consequently it dismisses the first preliminary objection. SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Failure to exhaust domestic remedies provided by the State Arguments of the State 47. The State argues that: a) when this complaint was considered for admissibility, the State informed the Commission that a process of criminal investigation into the facts was underway, and therefore the Commission should not hold the case admissible; b) rulings on two remedies are still pending in the domestic courts: a special motion and an extraordinary remedy lodged by the parents of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho. If these remedies are sustained, a new trial could ensue, ultimately with a possible criminal conviction. Therefore, it is “imprudent and premature [for the Court] to consider the instant case;” and c) the representatives have come before this Court to request payment of indemnification on behalf of the parents and purported daughter of Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho; nevertheless, they never availed themselves of domestic proceedings to make such a request. Arguments of the Commission 48. La Commission argues as follows: a) the State makes no claim that the Commission's decision is based on mistaken information or resulted from a process that compromised the parties' equality of arms or right to defense. The content of Commission decisions on admissibility, consistent with the provisions of its Rules of Procedure and the Convention, need not undergo a new examination of substance; b) nearly three years after it began processing this case, the Commission, in view of the State's silence, approved Admissibility Report No. 61/00. In its report, the Commission found that, as the State offered no argument of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the only brief it filed during the admissibility stage, it could be assumed to have tacitly waived this defense; and c) there was unjustified delay in conducting the process, first in the absence of an effective investigation, so that ultimately the case was set aside, and 6 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No.155, para. 63; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 39; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 65.