18. The representatives argued that the complainants had availed themselves of the applicable judicial remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction, lodging the ordinary appeals provided for under Chilean law, and that the other remedies cited by the State were specialpurpose appeals whose exhaustion was not mandatory. They argued that the exhaustion of domestic remedies was not only a benefit for the State to ensure respect for the subsidiary nature of the process before the inter-American system, but was also provided in benefit of individuals because it guarantees effective operation of the domestic legal system that can guarantee prompt redress of a right held to have been violated. They further held that the State had not explained how the remedies it cited ought to have been exhausted, nor did it clarify their availability or effectiveness. They added that the motion for reconsideration and the appeal for constitutional relief were not applicable in the instant case. Moreover, they noted, by restricting its preliminary objection to only eight of the thirteen processes, the State had accepted that final, non-appealable judgments had been handed down in five labor suits for which all remedies had been exhausted, but that payments owed had not been received. They believed that this constituted a recognition of responsibility by the State. 19. The Commission argued that, in its answering brief to the originating petition, the State had held up several arguments, including the failure to exhaust domestic remedies because no motion for reconsideration and appeal had been adduced against the judicial decision taking note of the request by the mayors. It sustained, nonetheless, that in the brief, the State had made no reference to the failure to exhaust remedies for the three cases that it claimed had been introduced after the time limits had expired. It deemed, on this point, that the objection had not been raised at the proper stage of the proceedings, as it was not submitted during the admissibility process. The Commission therefore asked that the preliminary objection on the alleged failure to exhaust resources be dismissed in the cases for which the State argued that enforcement actions had begun too late. The Commission also addressed the exhaustion of the remedies of reconsideration and appeal, emphasizing that the State had not explained how they could be applied, considering that assets and bank deposits belonging to the municipalities could not be attached. It added that there were clear defects in Chile’s regulatory framework, as no mechanisms were provided to ensure compliance with judicial decisions against municipalities. It requested for these reasons that the preliminary objection be dismissed for lack of merit. B. Considerations of the Court 20. In its answering brief and in its final arguments, the State discussed the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies in only eight of the thirteen proceedings covered by the instant case.15 This Court will therefore hear the preliminary objection about these eight cases, and will first examine the admissibility of the objection for the seven cases against the Municipalities of Chanco, Pelluhue and Cauquenes (B.1), and subsequently analyze the objection on the case of Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994 (B.2). 15 The State named the following cases: (1) Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994; (2) Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993; (3) Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993; (4) Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993; (5) Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 222-1993; (6) Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993; (7) Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993, and (8) Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 381993. 8