of Admissibility Report No. 4/96, the domestic remedies that the petitioners were exhausting and should exhaust.” In addition, the State referred to five domestic remedies that it considered “remain to be exhausted.” 17. The representatives indicated that, “during the petition’s admissibility proceeding before the Commission, the Dominican State did not argue th[is] objection [… and] did not specify the remedies that remained to be exhausted, or their effectiveness to respond to the complaints filed,” even though the Commission asked it for specific information in this regard. The representatives indicated that “Article 46 [of the Convention] does not require that domestic remedies be exhausted before the petition is presented, but rather that the Commission must analyze whether domestic remedies have been exhausted before issuing a decision on admissibility.” They also indicated that, when lodging the initial petition, they had “explained that the investigations initiated by the State based on the complaint filed by the victims had not been effective” and, subsequently, when the civil action was filed on May 26, 1995, and the State was informed of it, the latter “never ruled on this civil action filed by the victim’s family, or indicated to the Commission whether the action was sufficient or whether other remedies remained to be exhausted.” The representatives also referred to the remedies that, according to the State, remained to be exhausted. 18. The Commission argued that this preliminary objection was not filed before the ruling on admissibility and that the only relevant communication presented by the State during the admissibility stage was the brief of September 19, 1994. In this regard, the Commission stated that “although, [it had] mentioned in the Admissibility Report that this observation by the State [in the said communication …] appeared to be related to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, this did not imply that it had been presented as a means of defense or as support for a request to declare the petition inadmissible.” The Commission added that, “even if it is considered that the State’s observations in its brief of September 19, 1994, were equivalent to an argument of exhaustion of domestic remedies as a means of defense, […] the State did not mention any of the five remedies that it referred to in its answer to the application.” The Commission also referred to the other remedies that, according to the State, remained to be exhausted. Considerations of the Court 19. 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 under 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. 17 The Court recalls that the rule of previous exhaustion of domestic remedies is conceived in the interests of the State, because it seeks to exempt the State from responding before an international organ for acts attributed to it, before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by its own means. 18 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 85, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 27. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra note 17, para. 27. 9