16 exhaustion of domestic remedies as a whole. In other words, in this situation, the inter-American jurisdiction would not reinforce or be complementary to the domestic jurisdiction, but rather would substitute it or, at least, could be used to bring pressure to bear on the latter and, clearly, this is not what the Convention seeks. Moreover, it might constitute an incentive, which could be considered perverse, to lodge petitions before the Commission when the said requirement has not been met in the hope that it can be complied with before the Commission decides on their admissibility and, evidently, this was not anticipated or sought by the Convention. In addition, this begs the question of whether the “study and initial processing” of the petition is required, if it could be lodged without having previously exhausted the domestic remedies. Indeed, if this requirement was only compulsory when deciding on the admissibility of the petition, it is legitimate to question why it would be necessary to make an initial study of the petition and, furthermore, what would be the reason for and the practical effect of the Convention making a distinction between the moment of the lodging of the petition and the moment of its admissibility. Likewise, if it is considered that the said requirement or rule must be complied with when the decision on the admissibility of the petition is taken and not when it is lodged, it is logical to question the meaning of the petition itself. It should also be noted that, if the criterion that this compliance should have taken place at the time the petition is lodged or completed is not respected and, to the contrary, the thesis is adopted that compliance is determined when the Commission decides on the admissibility of the petition, this would result in situations of evident injustice or arbitrariness, insofar as the moment of this compliance would ultimately depend not on the victim or the petitioner, but on the Commission’s ruling when deciding on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the petition. Finally, it is reasonable to assume that, if the Commission were to make timely and expeditious rulings regarding the admissibility of the petitions “lodged,” it would certainly avoid delays or setbacks in the processing of a considerable number of cases. III. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE OBJECTION OF PRIOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES Based on the norms that have been mentioned, the relevant facts relating to the objection of non-compliance with the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are as follows. A. Those set out in in the petition The petition, presented by the Center for Studies and Action for Peace (Centro de Estudios y Acción para la Paz - CEAPAZ), was received by the Commission on July 26, 1991, 45 and relates to events that took place on July 4 of the same year, 46 that is to say, events that occurred 26 days earlier. The petition states 47 that those facts had taken place, describes the complaints that were filed and requests that it “communicate with the Peruvian government authorities, given the possibility that the minors” it identifies “are detained-disappeared.” 45 Para. 2. 46 Para. 1. 47 Para. 44.