45. Therefore, it can be presumed that this was done – that is, this phrase was included without the need to justify the reference to the said principles – because it was already solidly incorporated in or recognized by public international law when the International Court of Justice decided the third preliminary objection filed by the United States of America in the Case of Interhandel, 1959. Thus, that Court indicated that: “ The rule that local remedies must be exhausted before international proceedings may be instituted is a well-established rule of customary international law.”52 46. Hence, since it was a principle of international law, founded on extremely wellestablished customary public international law, it was probably not found necessary to justify its incorporation into the Convention. In this way, the Convention not only consolidated it even more by establishing it in its text, but also did not limit it to the “national” of the respondent State. Indeed, it made it applicable “to all persons subject to [the] jurisdiction” 53 of its States Parties, whether or not they were nationals of any of them. 47. That said, owing to the position taken in this opinion, the interesting point is that, according to the said decision of the International Court of Justice, which should be understood as the precedent for Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention, the exhaustion of domestic remedies must be accomplished prior to the claim made, which confirms the interpretation set out in this document. I. Exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies 48. Article 46(2) stipulates: The provisions of paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) of this article shall not be applicable when: a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 49. Accordingly, compliance with the rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies admits the three exceptions established in the above article, all factual matters in light of international law that must be weighed by the Commission or the Court, as and when appropriate. Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America), Judgment of March 21, 1959 : “The rule that local remedies must be exhausted before international proceedings may be instituted is a well-established rule of customary international law; the rule has been generally observed in cases in which a State has adopted the cause of its national whose rights are claimed to have been disregarded in another State in violation of international law. Before resort may be had to an international court in such a situation, it has been considered necessary that the State where the violation occurred should have an opportunity to redress it by its own means, within the framework of its own domestic legal system. A fortiori the rule must be observed when domestic proceedings are pending, as in the case of Interhandel, and when the two actions, that of the Swiss Company in the United States courts and that of the Swiss Government in this Court, in its principal Submission, are designed to obtain the same result: the restitution of the assets of Interhandel vested in the United States.” 52 Art. 1 of the Convention: “1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 2. For the purposes of this Convention, "person" means every human being.” 53 13