8 Report on Admissibility, or even before the State receive the petition, once it goes before the Inter-American Court, the Court shall decide whether to fully or partially admit the case, notwithstanding the existence of alleged violations. This standard would obviously be contrary to an interpretation that is favorable in regard to the alleged victim, and thus, contrary to the principle pro persona, highlighting that the right of access to justice is at stake—in the broad sense. Similarly, a stance of this nature would lead to a lack of acknowledgment of the need for the prevalence of substantial over procedural rights. 27. In the same sense and in accordance to a systematic interpretation of the InterAmerican System, a restrictive stance such as the consideration that the exhaustion of domestic remedies must be made as of the filing of the initial petition, would affect its functionality and its effet util. Even more so when Article 44 of the American Convention grants the possibility that "[a]ny person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity […] may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.” In this sense, and in view of the effective protection of Human Rights, the American Convention did not intend to require arduous requirements in order to file a petition before the System, which would have required legal assistance with knowledge of the domestic and international jurisdiction. On the contrary, given the initial proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, it is reasonable that, if the petition is not “manifestly inadmissible,” it duly assesses the initial petition, by way of a preliminary assessment, and if necessary, send it to the State in order for the State to respond. As such, the Commission may, where appropriate, assess the positions of the parties regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, ensuring at all times the adversarial nature, equality of the parties, and the adequate defense, in order to determine, within a reasonable period,27 the admissibility of the petition, by way of the adoption of the Report on Admissibility. 28. It should be noted that the European Court of Human Rights also has not considered that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is necessary at the time of the filing of the petition. Indeed, the Strasbourg Tribunal has held that this exhaustion can be achieved shortly after the presentation of the petition, but before the admissibility is determined. 28 This standard was also shared, at the time, by the same Tribunal in the operations stage before the European Commission of Human Rights, before the entry into force of Protocol 11 to the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. 29 In this sense, the similarity of the provisions of the American Convention (Art. 46(1)) 30 and the 27 In the Case of Mémoli V. Argentina, the State filed to Preliminary Objection arguing that the InterAmerican Commission had taken too long in forwarding the initial petition, and it argued to procedural fault, to which the Inter-American Court responded with the following in paragraph 41: “Nonetheless, this Court emphasizes that the Commission must guarantee, at all times, the reasonableness of the time frames during the processing of its proceedings. However, within certain temporal and reasonable limits, certain omissions or delays in the observance of the Commission’s own procedures may be excused if an adequate balance is maintained between justice and legal certainty. The foregoing consideration allow the conclusion to be reached that the State has not proved that the length of time that the petition spent at the stage of the initial review resulted in non-compliance with the procedural norms of the inter-American system or to serious error that affected its right of defense, in to way that justified the inadmissibility of this case.” (Italics added) 28 Cf. TEDH, Karoussiotis Vs. Portugal. No. 23205/08. Judgment of February 1, 2011, para. 57. This has been the standard followed by the ECHR in its procedures on admissibility. 29 30 Cf. TEDH, Ringeisen Vs. Austria. No. 2614/65. Judgment of July 26, 1971, para. 91. Art. 46. Admission by the Commission of to 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; b). that the petition