-9State’s arguments.12 Consequently, when a State cites the existence of a domestic remedy that has not been exhausted, it must do so at the proper moment and identify clearly the remedy in question, as well as how it would be adequate and effective to protect the persons in the situation that has been denounced.13 Thus, it is not sufficient to indicate the existence of a remedy, but its availability must also be proved.14 22. In this case, the State argued the failure to exhaust two specific remedies: (i) the contentious administrative action, and (ii) the application for amparo. Therefore, the Court must analyze whether the State presented arguments concerning both remedies during the admissibility procedure before the Commission. 23. Regarding the contentious administrative jurisdiction, the Court notes that the State mentioned the alleged failure to exhaust this remedy for the first time in its answering brief before this Court. Thus, the State did not refer to the said remedy at the proper procedural moment. Consequently, this aspect of the preliminary objection is rejected. 24. Meanwhile, it can be observed that, during the admissibility procedure before the Commission, in communications dated October 19, 2010,15 and March 16 and 25, 2011, the State argued that the presumed victims could still exhaust the application for amparo.16 Following the Admissibility Report,17 in which the Commission decided to combine the matter of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies with the analysis of the merits of the petition, the State continued to present arguments in this regard on February 118 and June 25, 2012.19 In those briefs, the State argued that the application for amparo was suitable and adequate “to contest [the] hypothetical rights violations during the disciplinary proceedings” and that it could be filed within two months of notification of the Judicial Service Council’s decision. It also indicated that, the amparo could “uphold or reinstate the enjoyment of the rights and guarantees established by the Constitution and international treaties, conventions and other instruments.”20 25. Meanwhile, the representatives indicated that, according to article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, no remedy could be filed, against the Council’s decisions, not even the application for amparo.21 12 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 23, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 28. 13 Cf. Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 30. 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 88, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 43. 15 Cf. The State’s brief of October 19, 2010 (evidence file, folios 53, 63 to 67, 83 to 86, 100 and 102). 16 Cf. The State’s brief of March 16, 2011 (evidence file, folios 4623 to 4661), and the State’s brief of March 25, 2011 (evidence file, folios 4611 to 4618). 17 The Commission indicated that “[g]iven the interrelationship between the effectiveness of the remedies available in order to exhaust domestic remedies and the possible violations of human rights at issue in the case, the Commission considers that the question of the prior exhaustion of those remedies must be taken up together with the merits of the petition.” Admissibility Report No. 70/11, Petition 975-10, Adán Guillermo López Lone et al., Honduras, issued by the InterAmerican Commission on March 31, 2011 (evidence file, folio 4586). 18 Cf. The State’s brief of February 1, 2012 (evidence file, folios 4341 to 4344). 19 Cf. The State’s brief of June 25, 2012 (evidence file, folios 4290 to 4294). 20 In this regard, it cited article 42 of the Constitutional Justice Act which establishes that “[t]he application for amparo is admissible against the decisions, acts and deeds of the Branches of the State.” The State’s brief of October 15, 2010 (evidence file, folios 84, 85 and 86), and Constitutional Justice Act, article 42 (evidence file, folio 3919). 21 Cf. The representatives’ brief of January 20, 2011 (evidence file, folio 4791).