64. Consequently, this rule does not establish that this requirement must or may be met at a time following the submission of the petition. Also, it should be noted that the said forwarding should be of the petition as lodged and, therefore, it should include the reference to the said requirement. To the contrary, the State would be unable to file the respective objection. C. The State’s answer and the observations of the parties 65. That said, according to the Article 30(3), first phrase, and (5) of the said Rules of Procedure: “3. The State shall submit its response within three months from the date the request is transmitted. … 5. Prior to deciding upon the admissibility of the petition, the Commission may invite the parties to submit additional observations, either in writing or in a hearing, as provided for in Chapter VI of these Rules of Procedure.”60 66. Obviously, the State’s response to the document forwarded and the additional observations of the parties in answer to the Commission’s invitation, must refer to the pertinent petition, which – let me repeat – must meet all the established requirements, including that of providing information on the measures taken to exhaust the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction – prior to its submission. To this end, it should be underlined that this rule expressly mentions that “[p]rior to deciding upon the admissibility of the petition, the Commission may invite the parties to submit additional observations,” and logically these may only refer to the contents of the petition “lodged.” 67. This is why Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that: “When the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.”61 68. However, it should also be recalled that if, in a case that is not expressly considered in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the petitioner should indicated in his petition that he has previously exhausted the domestic remedies – in other words, he has complied with the provisions of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention – the State is able to file the objection that this has not occurred. 69. Consequently, it is apparent that the said response of the State must logically and necessarily be with regard to the petition “lodged” before the Commission, and that it is with regard to what has taken place at that time – and not subsequently – that the dispute or controversy is established as regards matters concerning the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 70. Thus, it is clear that compliance with the rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or the impossibility of complying with it, must be indicated in the petition because, otherwise, the State could not respond to this. In other words, only if the petition indicates that the said rule has been complied with or that it is impossible to do so, will the State be able to argue non-compliance and prove the availability, adequacy, suitability and 60 Art. 30(3) and (5). 61 Art. 31(3). 16