Commission may invite the parties to submit additional observations,” and logically these may only refer to the contents of the petition “lodged.” 67. This is why Article 31(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure stipulates that: “When the petitioner contends that he or she is unable to prove compliance with the requirement indicated in this article, it shall be up to the State concerned to demonstrate to the Commission that the remedies under domestic law have not been previously exhausted, unless that is clearly evident from the record.”59 68. However, it should also be recalled that if, in a case that is not expressly considered in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the petitioner should indicated in his petition that he has previously exhausted the domestic remedies – in other words, he has complied with the provisions of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention – the State is able to file the objection that this has not occurred. 69. Consequently, it is apparent that the said response of the State must logically and necessarily be with regard to the petition “lodged” before the Commission, and that it is with regard to what has taken place at that time – and not subsequently – that the dispute or controversy is established as regards matters concerning the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 70. Thus, it is clear that compliance with the rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or the impossibility of complying with it, must be indicated in the petition because, otherwise, the State could not respond to this. In other words, only if the petition indicates that the said rule has been complied with or that it is impossible to do so, will the State be able to argue non-compliance and prove the availability, adequacy, suitability and effectiveness of the domestic remedies that have not been exhausted, all of which means – let me repeat – that this requirement must have been met previously or the impossibility of meeting it alleged, before lodging the petition the pertinent parts of which are forwarded to the State precisely for it to respond to them. 71. To the contrary, if the petition does not make any mention of the said requirement, the State need only indicate this situation; that is, that the petition does not meet the requirement. In this situation, imposing on the State the obligation to prove the existence of adequate, suitable and effective remedies that have not been exhausted means substituting the State for the petitioner as holder of the obligation established in the Convention and in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure to previously exhaust the domestic remedies and to provide the “information on the measures taken to exhaust the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction or the impossibility of doing so” and imposing on it a burden due to a third party obligation. 72. It should also be repeated that, for the same reason, it is at the time that the petition is submitted that the domestic remedies should have been exhausted or that it is indicated that it is impossible to do so because, if it is argued that these remedies could be exhausted following the “submission” of the petition and, consequently, its notification to the State, this would affect the essential procedural equilibrium and leave the latter defenseless, because it would be unable to file the pertinent preliminary objection in due time and manner. 73. It is within this framework that the words of the Court “that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies should be filed 59 Art. 31(3). 16