applicable.41 It should be recalled in this regard that on the date the report was released, the primary case had been subject to a dispute on jurisdiction, and the ruling in favor of the military courts had led to dismissal of the case in favor of all those who had been tried in that jurisdiction (infra paras. 189 and 191). Moreover, a criminal investigation was underway in the ordinary jurisdiction against the alleged commanding officers, and an investigation for the crime of complicity and concealment had been joined to it (infra paras. 197 and 199). 52. The State also argued before this Court that it would be “inconsistent to pursue a process before the inter-American system when the criminal proceedings for the same facts were still in progress in the domestic courts” (supra para. 45). The Court would recall in this regard that the American Convention itself expressly allows for a petition to be declared admissible under certain assumptions, even if the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has not yet been established at the time the admissibility report is issued. Adopting the position held by the State would mean removing all content and useful effect from the provisions of Article 46(2) of the American Convention. 53. The Court would respond to the Commission’s decision to apply the exception set forth in subparagraph (c) when it issued the Admissibility Report by noting that at a later date, in 2011, the State itself admitted responsibility for breaching the right to a reasonable period in the trial held in the criminal courts (supra para. 22), that the ruling to uphold the acquittals of all the people being tried was issued in July, 2013, and a new investigation was ordered in 2014 (infra paras. 233 to 236). This Court recalls international practice and its own case law, which indicate that when a party in a case adopts a position that is either detrimental to itself or beneficial to the other party, the principle of estoppel prevents it from subsequently assuming the contrary position.42 Therefore, the objection raised by the State before this Court, questioning the Commission’s claim of unwarranted delay in trying the case in the ordinary courts, and the State’s arguments about possible justification for the delay in processing the domestic case constitute a change in the position it adopted previously and is not admissible under the principle of estoppel. The State’s objection for failure to exhaust domestic remedies must accordingly be denied. C. Third preliminary objection: “Objection calling for a review of the legality of Report on the Merits 66/11 regarding the identification of the alleged victims and human rights not included in Admissibility Report 13/04;” Arguments by the State, the Commission, and the representatives 54. The State doubted the Court’s jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae in the instant case because the Commission, in Admissibility Report 13/04, had expressly identified the alleged victims and the rights in question, meaning that it had not admitted family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza as victims of the alleged violation of the right to personal integrity. The State emphasized that one of the purposes of the Admissibility Report was to set the parameters of the dispute in the merits stage of the contentious proceeding before the Commission, and therefore, “the admissibility reports become the conditio sine qua non of the discussion on the Cf. Admissibility Report No. 13/04 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 27, 2004, para. 62 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folio 1625). 41 In keeping with its own case law, this Court believes that, under the principle of estoppel, a State that has taken a particular stance that produces legal effects cannot then take a different, contrary position that changes the status of a matter on which the other party based its actions. Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 29, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 24. 42