22. Meanwhile, Article 47(a) of the Convention adds that: The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: a. any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met.” B. Grounds 23. The grounds for the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in the inter-American human rights system is to be found in the third paragraph of the Preamble to the Convention which indicates that: “Recognizing that the essential rights of man are not derived from one's being a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify international protection in the form of a convention reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States.” C. The complementary or reinforcing nature of the inter-American protection 24. Having set out the grounds and the applicable norms, it is necessary to insist on the said rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and, consequently, that, in this case, “the international protection” of the inter-American human rights system is contemplated in the Convention as “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American States” and, logically, this implies that the former does not replace the latter, among other reasons because, in relation to compliance with what the inter-American system ordains – at least in disputes involving the Commission and the petitioners on the one hand, and the State concerned on the other – this must always be complied with or executed by the latter.40 25. This means that the inter-American jurisdiction does not substitute or replace the domestic jurisdiction, it merely complements or reinforces the latter; that is, it contributes to or helps the latter re-establish, as soon as possible, the exercise of the human rights that are alleged to have been violated. In this regard, it should not be forgotten that it is the State that is obligated by the Convention41 and, therefore, it not only has the international obligation to respect and ensure respect for the rights recognized therein,42 but also, frequently, it can only do so through its courts of justice. 26. This is why, as the Court has indicated: “The rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been conceived in the interest of the State because it seeks to exempt it from responding before an international organ for acts attributed to it, before it has had the opportunity to rectify them using its own means.”43 27. Ultimately, this rule allows the State to comply with its human rights obligations without waiting for the inter-American system to order it to do so, following litigation. 44 Hence, the said rule is intended to accord the State the possibility of ordering the effective respect for and exercise of the human rights that have been violated as soon as possible, which is the 40 Supra, footnote 23. 41 Idem. 42 Supra, footnote 25. 43 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 44 Supra, footnote 15. 8