the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, but must also demonstrate that they were available and adequate, appropriate and effective. 16 28. In addition, in its consistent case law, the Court has maintained that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the appropriate procedural moment; that is, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission; 17 therefore, it is understood that following this appropriate procedural moment, the principle of procedural preclusion comes into operation. 18 29. Accordingly, the Court notes that during the admissibility stage of the petition before the Commission, in a brief of August 19, 2004, the State alleged that even “if […it had] not complied with its obligations to the Punta Piedra Garifuna community by paying the compensation of thirteen million one hundred and sixty-eight thousand nine hundred and eighty-two lempiras with eighty-four cents (Lps. 13,168,982.84), 19 before the community instituted legal proceedings, an administrative action should have been filed with the corresponding authority or entity, as established in articles 146, 147, 148 and 149 of Title V of the Administrative Procedure Act. If this is rejected, the interested party may file the corresponding legal action in order to obtain the right recognized in the conciliation arrangement.” 20 This argument was reiterated in a brief dated October 28, 2004. 21 30. In its Admissibility Report of March 24, 2010, the Commission considered that the State had alleged failure to exhaust an administrative remedy and that, when this had been exhausted, a judicial action should have been filed; however, this was only mentioned in general terms. In addition, it considered that the presumed victims did not have an adequate mechanism to require the State to protect their territory and, pursuant to Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention, this constituted grounds for an exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 31. The Court notes that, during the admissibility procedure before the InterAmerican Commission, the State had argued failure to exhaust an administrative remedy to claim payment of compensation. In this regard, the Court agrees with the 16 para. 31. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, paras. 88 and 91, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary objections, supra, paras. 88 and 89, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 27. 18 Cf. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C N. 265, para. 47, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C N. 283, para. 20. 19 The Court noted that this amount related to the INA assessment of the improvements made by the inhabitants of Rio Miel in 2001 (infra para. 115). 20 Cf. The State’s brief before the IACHR of August 19, 2004 (evidence file, folio 357). 21 On that occasion, the State argued that “the conflict involving the lands of the Punta Piedra Garifuna community was not settled by the procedure provided for in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but rather by an Ad Hoc Interinstitutional Commission and representatives of ODECO and OFRANEH, that made an appraisal of the useful improvements made by the said Garifuna community and added a budget for administrative expenses. Therefore, this was considered the equivalent to extrajudicial conciliation, so that the interested parties could access the administrative procedure, as provided for in the Law on Administrative Procedure […]; and the text of article 146 expressly establishes that the State shall not be sued under private law without a prior administrative claim with the respective authority or entity having been filed. […] The said extrajudicial agreement should in no way be construed as the ‘exhaustion of domestic remedies’ established in [Article] 46(1)(a) of the American Convention on Human Rights.” Cf. The State’s brief before the IACHR of October 28, 2004 (evidence file, folios 331 and 332). 17 12