of international law.12 This Court’s consistent case law has indicated that objections based on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed at the proper procedural moment13 – at the admissibility stage – and that, at that time, the State must indicate the remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness.14 40. According to the file of the procedure before the Commission, this objection was presented at the appropriate procedural moment because the State filed it in its initial brief of May 2, 2012,15 and reiterated it in a brief of July 24, 2012.16 41. A review of the case file reveals that, during the domestic proceedings, the following were filed: a remedy of cassation,17 and three appeals for review.18 In addition, at least fifteen applications for habeas corpus were filed and these were decided by rulings: 2003-14758,19 2004-00293,20 2004-01184,21 2004-01644,22 2004- Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1 para. 85, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 23. 12 13 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 88, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 18, 2022. Series C No. 475, para. 21. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 88, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 21. 14 15 Cf. Communication of the State of Costa Rica to the Inter-American Commission of May 2, 2012 (evidence file, folios 6567 to 6597). Cf. Communication of the State of Costa Rica to the Inter-American Commission of July 24, 2012 (evidence file, folios 6633 and 6634). 16 17 Cf. Remedy of cassation filed by the lawyers MCZ and MSB, on behalf of Scot Cochran, before the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on September 6, 2004, against judgment No. 851-04 of the Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José (evidence file, folios 5 to 19). 18 Cf. First review procedure filed on June 14, 2004, against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 114 to 156, and folios 2343 to 2368), decided by Ruling No. 2007-01464 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 12, 2007 (evidence file, folios 24 to 36); Second review procedure of April 28, 2009, filed against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 158 to 211) decided by Ruling No. 01373-2010 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 30, 2010. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/ document/sen-10034-504556, and Third review procedure of February 10, 2012, filed by Scot Cochran against judgment No. 851-04 delivered by the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José on August 17, 2004 (evidence file, folios 213 to 231) decided by Ruling No. 2013-00211 of the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 15, 2013 (evidence file, folios 38 to 40). 19 Filed on November 27, 2003, against the Court and Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, requesting modification of the precautionary measure, which was denied. Available at: https://nexuspj.poderjudicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-260051 Filed on December 31, 2003, against the Department of Social Adaptation, arguing that he had not been taken to receive medical treatment; rejected, however. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial. go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-260051 20 21 Filed on January 27, 2004, against the Criminal Cassation Court, contesting the extension of pre-trial detention because it violated the right to life; however, this was rejected because the Constitutional Chamber found that the legal and constitutional requirements for the precautionary measure had been met. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-260276 Filed on February 16, 2003, against the Ministry of Justice and Mercy, arguing alleged non-compliance with the decision of the Criminal Judge of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, ordering the applicant’s transfer to a center where he could receive the treatment he required. The Constitutional Chamber reiterated that the application for habeas corpus was not appropriate to file this request and rejected the remedy outright. Available at: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-262695 22 10