46. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that, in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged before the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 56 However, this supposes not only that these remedies exist formally, but also that they must be adequate and effective, as a result of the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 57 47. It has also been the Court’s consistent case law that an objection to the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed at the appropriate procedural moment, 58 namely during the first stages of the admissibility proceedings before the Commission, 59 and the remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness must be described in detail. This way in which the Court has interpreted Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for over two decades is in keeping with international law, 60 on the basis of which it is understood that following the said appropriate procedural moment, the principle of procedural preclusion comes into operation. In the instant case, the State did not argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the admissibility stage before the Commission; 61 this objection was filed for the first time in the State’s answering brief before this Court, so that its filing before the Court is time-barred. 48. In this regard, the Court observes that the amendment to the definition of the offense of defamation in the Criminal Code, promulgated on November 26, 2009, and the filing of the appeal on unconstitutionality on November 23, 2009, constitute supervening facts that were not included in the initial petition regarding which the representatives allege the violation of a right not included in the Merits Report (supra para. 5 and infra para. 150). Therefore, the principle of procedural preclusion is not applicable to the admissibility of these facts. 62 Nevertheless, the Court stresses that this principle is applicable to all the other facts of this case. 49. Since this is a supervening fact, it was not possible for the State to argue the failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the admissibility stage of the proceedings before the Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission is responsible for ensuring compliance with the admissibility requirements established by the Convention, even though, in exceptional circumstances, the Court may review the actions of the Commission in those matters submitted to the Court’s consideration (supra paras. 25 and 27). 56 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 85, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 33. 57 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 33. 58 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 34. 59 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 81, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 34. 60 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 22, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 34. 61 In the Admissibility Report, the Commission considered that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies established in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention had been complied with by the appeals filed in the criminal proceedings (infra paras. 75 to 90). Cf. Admissibility Report No. 39/08, Petition 56-98, Carlos and Pablo Mémoli v. Argentina, July 23, 2008 (file of proceedings before the Commission, tome III, folio 788). 62 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 28. 20