16 pointed out that it is not disputed that in 1991 at least seven complaints were filed regarding the facts, in addition to two habeas corpus petitions which were dismissed. They also noted that two criminal proceedings had been initiated, one in the military jurisdiction in 1991 and the other in the ordinary jurisdiction in 1992, and that the latter was shelved due to the application of the Amnesty Law, and it was only in 2005 that the case was reopened. They also pointed out that at the time of the issuance of the Report on Admissibility and Merits there were two criminal proceedings in progress, and that this case was brought before the Court “due to the lack of progress in the implementation of the [Commission's] recommendations by the State.” Thus, this procedural delay, closely linked to the merits of the case, had “drastically exceeded any reasonable time [...].” In their final written arguments, the representatives further argued that his preliminary objection is incompatible with the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State, since such acknowledgement implies in principle the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. A.2. Considerations of the Court 43. 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 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 17 In this regard, the Court has held 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 opportunity, that is, during the admissibility proceeding before the Commission. 18 44. In this case, during the admissibility proceeding before the Commission, by means of communications received by the Commission on September 21, 1992 and January 25, March 21 and May 17, 2011, the State alleged that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies had not been met. 19 Subsequently, the Commission's Report on Admissibility and Merits was issued on July 21, 2011. Therefore, the present preliminary objection was filed at the appropriate procedural moment. 45. Notwithstanding the foregoing, first of all, the Court recalls that preliminary objections cannot limit, contradict or render ineffective the content of a State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. 20 In this regard, the Court notes that the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies filed by Peru is not compatible with the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility in this case (supra paras. 23 to 33), since, if declared admissible, it would exclude all the facts and violations admitted by Peru from the jurisdiction of this Court. 46. In addition, the Court recalls that, in order for a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to proceed, the State presenting this objection must specify the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted, and demonstrate that these remedies were Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 42. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 85, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293, para. 28. 19 Cf. Brief of the State of September 21, 1992, received by the Commission on September 23, 1992 (evidence file, folio 400); Brief of the State of December 7, 2010 received by the Commission on January 25, 2011 (evidence file, folios 673 to 681); Brief of the State of March 21, 2011 (evidence file, folios 737 to 746), and Brief of the State of May 17, 2011 (evidence file, folios 690 to 694). 20 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 26, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 37. 17