4 13. The Inter-American Court dismissed the preliminary objection because it essentially considered that “the petitioner argued that the alleged violations to the right to appeal the conviction and the rule of freedom from ex post facto law before the High Court of Justice were unfavorably resolved by the Interlocutory Verdict of June 12, 2003 […] prior to submitting the petition to the Commission. Consequently, in the present case, the Court finds that, due to the absence of a mechanism by which to appeal the possible conviction, the issuance of said judgment was not a prerequisite for purposes of presenting the case before the Commission.”8 14. As such, I concur with the decision of the Inter-American Court in this case. Also, I consider it necessary to take into account the conventional norms that govern procedure before the Inter-American Commission, in order to properly interpret that procedure and for the purposes of the effet utile of the Inter-American human rights system as a whole. 15. Chapter VII of the American Convention establishes the organization, functions, jurisdiction, and procedure of the Inter-American Commission in regard to the rights recognized therein. In Section 3, on the Jurisdiction of the Commission, Article 46(1) states: Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; […] 16. By way of a literal interpretation of the norm, stemming from the ordinary meaning of its terms,9 it can be inferred that the assessment made by the Inter-American Commission on the exhaustion of domestic remedies occurs in the determination of admissibility. 17. It is necessary to distinguish between three procedural stages, namely: a) the filing of the initial petition b) its initial assessment, through a preliminary examination (prima facie), and if appropriate, the transfer of the relevant parts of the petition to the respondent State, and c) the admission of the case, if considered relevant, before the inter-American system, through the adoption of the Report on Admissibility. 18. In this regard, the Order of Preliminary Objections in the case of Castillo Petruzzi and others v. Peru, the Inter-American Court noted that “the receipt of the complaint, which derives from an act of the complainant, should not be confused with its admission and processing, which are accomplished by specific acts of the Commission itself, such as the decision to admit the complaint and, when appropriate, the notification of the State.” 10 19. It was necessary to interpret Article 46(1) in relation to the procedure in question; thus, while the inter-American system is subsidiary and complementary, the integrative 8 Para. 18 of the Judgment. 9 See the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treatises. Article 31. General rule of interpretation. I. to treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. 10 Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. V. Perú. Preliminary Objections. Order of September 4, 1988, Series C No. 41, para. 54.