29. This Court has affirmed consistently that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be submitted in a timely manner from the procedural standpoint15, that is, during the admissibility of the proceeding before the Commission.16 Moreover, the Court reiterates that pursuant to its jurisprudence17 and international jurisprudence18, it is not the task for the Court nor of the Commission to identify ex officio the remedies to be exhausted, but rather it is up to the State to identify, in a timely manner, the domestic remedies that should be exhausted and their effectiveness. 30. In the present case, the State raised the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the civil action for damages in its brief presented to the Commission on July 10, 2006. At said time, it claimed that Mr. Mejía Idrovo had to have lodged a civil action for damages before the competent judges of Ecuador for them to determine the damage and amount of compensation. Subsequently, on June 24, 2010, in its answer to the application, the State added that the action for noncompliance introduced by the new Ecuadorian Constitution was also an appropriate remedy. 31. In its Report on Admissibility and Merits No. 07/09, the Commission concluded that the civil action for damages within the judicial proceedings of an ordinary nature did not constitute an appropriate remedy to comply with that established by the Constitutional Tribunal in its Resolution of May 12, 2002, which according to said Court, was self-executable, and as such the Executive branch and Armed Forces should have complied with said decision. As such, it considered that the action of unconstitutionality filed by Colonel Mejía Idrovo before the Constitutional Tribunal was the appropriate remedy to declare unconstitutional the challenged executive decrees. 32. In regard to the civil action for damages, the Court adheres to the position adopted by the Commission in its Report on the Admissibility and Merits, in that it considers that the action for damages was not the most appropriate remedy to repair the infringed legal situation regarding the alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection of Mr. Mejía Idrovo. In this sense, the Court notes that both the Commission and representatives argued that pursuant to current domestic law of the State at the time of the facts, the decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal were self-executing, given that they involve a procedural act that has a res judicata effect, that is, that they must be complied with by the different domestic authorities without the need rising for another legal action. In this regard, the State did not present arguments related to the self-executing nature of the Constitutional 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note para. 88; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha Do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 9, para. 38, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 14. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, supra note 12, para. 88; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 9, para. 38, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 14. 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, supra note 12, para. 88; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 9, para. 38, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 14. 18 Cf. ECHR. Case of Deweer v. Belgium, Judgment of 27 February 1980, Series to no. 35, para. 26; ECHR. Case of of Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v. the Netherlands, Judgment of May 22, 1984, Series to no. 77, para. 36, and Case of Paksas versus Lituania, Judgment 01.06.2011, para. 75. 10