That reason has to do with the resolution of the attached litigation regarding compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. In this regard, it should be noted here that in the petition received by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 4 on April 5, 1998, 5 no information was provided on that question, in violation of Article 46(1)(a) 6 of the American Convention on Human Rights 7 and Article 28(8) 8 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, and also that there is no record of the Commission having done the first review of compliance with said requirement, as mandated in Article 26 of the same Rules of Procedure. 9 Two additional issues should be taken into consideration. First, the State, in its timely response to that requirement—which was dated October 18, 1999 and pursuant to Article 48(1)(a) 10 of the Convention and Article 30(2)(3) 11 of the aforementioned Rules of Procedure—indicated the remedies that in its view had not been exhausted, without alleging, however, a violation of the referenced Article 26. Second, the Commission commented on the admissibility of the referenced petition, pursuant to the terms in which it was presented as much as to the referenced response of the State. That is, it came to a decision on the attached litigation—not on subsequent events—at that time. 12 Thus, the separate opinion recorded in this document was issued because operative paragraph 1 of the judgment was adopted essentially in consideration of the Commission’s determination and because it does not conflict—quite the opposite—with the arguments repeatedly made in the indicated separate opinions. 4 Hereinafter, the Commission. 5 Paragraph 2(a) of the judgment. 6 “Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a. that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; …” 7 Hereinafter, the Convention. “Requirements for the Consideration of Petitions. Petitions addressed to the Commission shall contain the following information: …h. any steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies, or the impossibility of doing so as provided in Article 31 of these Rules of Procedure;” 8 “Initial Review. 1. The Executive Secretariat of the Commission shall be responsible for the study and initial processing of petitions lodged before the Commission that fulfill all the requirements set forth in the Statute and in Article 28 of these Rules of Procedure. 2. If a petition or communication does not meet the requirements called for in these Rules of Procedure, the Executive Secretariat may request that the petitioner or his or her representative satisfy those that have not been fulfilled. 3. If the Executive Secretariat has any doubt as to whether the requirements referred to have been met, it shall consult the Commission.” 9 10 “When the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows: a) If it considers the petition or communication admissible, it shall request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations and shall furnish that government a transcript of the pertinent portions of the petition or communication. This information shall be submitted within a reasonable period to be determined by the Commission in accordance with the circumstances of each case;” 11 “Admissibility Procedure… 2. For this purpose, it shall forward the relevant parts of the petition to the State in question. [...] The request to the State for information shall not constitute a prejudgment with regard to any decision the Commission may adopt on the admissibility of the petition. 3. The State shall submit its response within three months counted from the date the request is transmitted. The Executive Secretariat shall evaluate requests for extensions of this period that are duly founded. However, it shall not grant extensions that exceed four months from the date of the first request for information sent to the State.” 12 Paragraphs 2(1)(b) and 14 of the judgment. 2