13 32. The Court recalls that the first element that must be determined in relation to a preliminary objection of this nature is whether the objection was filed at the proper procedural moment, an aspect that is in dispute in this case. The Court notes that the petition lodged on March 7, 2007, was forwarded to the State on May 8 that year, on which date the Inter-American Commission granted the State two months to remit its observations concerning the admissibility of the petition. On December 6, 2007, the State forwarded the observations requested,18 asking the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible based on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In particular, the State indicated that I.V. “could have filed an application for constitutional amparo to obtain effective reparation of the rights claimed”; this remedy was regulated in article 19 of the Constitution and was the domestic remedy that should be exhausted. 19 33. The Court notes that the State did file an objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the processing of the petition at the admissibility stage before the Commission; but, it merely argued the failure to exhaust the application for constitutional amparo. Therefore, and pursuant to the Court’s case law,20 the State cannot argue before this Court the failure to exhaust other remedies that were not alleged at that procedural opportunity. Thus, the State’s arguments regarding the alleged failure to exhaust the cassation procedure, which was filed for the first time in its answering brief before this Court, are time-barred. 34. Regarding to the alleged failure to exhaust the application for constitutional amparo, the Court notes that, as previously mentioned (supra para. 33), the State filed this objection in its brief with observations on the initial petition, so that it was filed at the proper procedural opportunity. As grounds for its preliminary objection in the procedure before the Commission, the State indicated that, according to article 19 of the Constitution in force at the time and article 94 of Law 1836, the application for constitutional amparo was admissible “against any undue decision, act or omission of an authority or official, provided that there was no other means or remedy for the immediate protection of rights and guarantees […].” Additionally, it cited the Constitutional Court’s decision No. 1261/2006-R of December 11, 2006, arguing that “if the presumed victim had filed the appeal against the decision declaring the extinction of the criminal proceedings arguing non-compliance with constitutional orders and judgments, she, therefore, did have an expeditious means to file a constitutional amparo” [sic]. In addition, it indicated that Constitutional Judgment No. 0921/2004-R of June 15, 2004, established the time frame for filing the application for constitutional amparo. 35. Meanwhile, the petitioner argued before the Commission that there was no precedent in the case law of the Bolivian Constitutional Court that, by filing of an application for constitutional amparo, it was possible to annul a decision that extinguished criminal proceedings due to violation of due process in relation to a delay in justice that could be attributed to the jurisdictional organ. Also, she distinguished the precedent cited of Constitutional Court Decision No. 1261/2006-R from the instant case, because the case sub judice did not refer to a supposed extinction of the criminal proceedings based on their supposed abandonment owing to the failure to attend a hearing. 36. The State never responded to this argument and, therefore, did not present elements that would have allowed the Commission to reject the considerations presented by the petitioner para. 25. Cf. Report GM-DGAJ-DAJ-2629-A/2007 of December 4, 2007, received on December 6, 2007, by the Inter-American Commission (file of the procedure before the Commission, volume II, folios 307 to 337). 18 Cf. Report GM-DGAJ-DAJ-2629-A/2007 received on December 6, 2007, by the Inter-American Commission (file of the procedure before the Commission, volume II, folio 325). 19 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 82 and 83, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, para. 26. 20