17 Government's allusion to domestic remedies, nor to the juridical effects that could be inferred therefrom. In addition, in Resolutions 16/84 and 23/86 the Commission referred to the matter rather inconsistently, for whereas the first Resolution contended that the representations made before various governments were sufficient to satisfy the requirement, the second affirmed that the victim and the petitioner had not had access to the domestic remedies of Honduras. Under those circumstances and with no more evidence than that contained in the record, the Court deems that it would be improper to reject the Government's objection in limine without giving both parties the opportunity to substantiate their contentions. 90. The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies under the international law of human rights has certain implications that are present in the Convention. Under the Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8 (1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1). Thus, when certain exceptions to the rule of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies are invoked, such as the ineffectiveness of such remedies or the lack of due process of law, not only is it contended that the victim is under no obligation to pursue such remedies, but, indirectly, the State in question is also charged with a new violation of the obligations assumed under the Convention. Thus, the question of domestic remedies is closely tied to the merits of the case. 91. At the hearing, the Government stressed that the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is justified because the international system for the protection of human rights guaranteed in the Convention is ancillary to its domestic law. 92. The observation of the Government is correct. However, it must also be borne in mind that the international protection of human rights is founded on the need to protect the victim from the arbitrary exercise of governmental authority. The lack of effective domestic remedies renders the victim defenseless and explains the need for international protection. Thus, whenever a petitioner alleges that such remedies do not exist or are illusory, the granting of such protection may be not only justified, but urgent. In those cases, not only is Article 37 (3) of the Regulations of the Commission on the burden of proof applicable, but the timing of the decision on domestic remedies must also fit the purposes of the international protection system. The rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective. This is why Article 46 (2) of the Convention sets out exceptions to the requirement of recourse to domestic remedies prior to seeking international protection, precisely in situations in which such remedies are, for a variety of reasons, ineffective. Of course, when the State interposes this objection in timely fashion it should be heard and resolved; however, the relationship between the decision regarding applicability of the rule and the need for timely international action in the absence of effective domestic remedies may frequently recommend the hearing of questions relating to that rule together with the merits, in order to prevent unnecessary delays due to preliminary objections. 93. The foregoing considerations are relevant to the analysis of the application now before the Court, which the Commission presented as a case of the forced disappearance of individuals on instructions of public authorities. Wherever this practice has existed, it has been made possible precisely by the lack of domestic remedies or their lack of effectiveness in protecting the essential rights of those persecuted by the authorities. In such cases, given the interplay between the problem of domestic remedies and the very violation of human rights, the question of their prior exhaustion must be taken up together with the merits of the case. 94. The Commission has also argued that the exhaustion of domestic remedies was not, in the instant case, a compulsory prerequisite to seeking international protection, given the lack of effectiveness of the judiciary when the acts allegedly occurred. It has likewise indicated that, at