B. Considerations of the Court 13. Article 46 of the American Convention indicates that for a petition presented under Articles 44 or 45 of that treaty to be admitted by the Commission, it is required, inter alia, “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The Court will evaluate in this case whether, pursuant to its jurisprudence, the formal and material standards for a preliminary objection on the grounds of a lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies to proceed have been met. With regard to the formal standards, with the understanding that this exception is a defense available to the State, the Tribunal will first analyze strictly procedural questions, such as the procedural moment in which the objection was raised (whether it was raised in a timely fashion); the facts with regard to which it was raised; and whether the interested party has indicated that the ruling on admissibility was based on erroneous information or on anything else that would affect the right to defense. With regard to the material requisites, the Court should analyze whether domestic remedies have been sought and exhausted in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law - in particular, whether the State raising this objection has specified which domestic remedies have not yet been exhausted. It will also be necessary to demonstrate that these remedies were available, adequate, suitable, and effective. This is due to the fact that because the admissibility of a petition before the Inter-American System is at issue, the Court must verify that the requisites of the rule are met as alleged, though the analysis of the formal requisites takes precedence over that of the material requisites and, in some instances, the latter can be related to the merits of the case.3 14. Related with the foregoing, this Tribunal has repeatedly held in its jurisprudence that an objection to the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be presented at the proper procedural moment4 - that is, during the admissibility stage of the proceeding before the Commission.5 If it is not, the State will have lost its opportunity to file this defense before this Tribunal. Likewise, it is up to neither the Court nor the Commission to identify, ex officio, the domestic remedies that must be exhausted. Rather, it is incumbent upon the State to indicate in a timely fashion the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. Neither does it fall on the international bodies to rectify a lack of precision in the pleadings of a State6 that, in spite of having a 3 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Garibaldi, para. 46, and Case of Perozo et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 42. 4 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 3, para. 88; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 20, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 38. 5 Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 81; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 20, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 4, para. 38. 6 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23; Case of Usón Ramírez V. 7