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.” With respect to the foregoing, the moment of lodging a petition is distinct from that of pronouncement on its admissibility. Article 33 of the Regulations of the IACHR, for instance, authorizes the Commission to ask the petitioner to complete the requirements omitted in the petition, should the Commission consider that the “petition is inadmissible or incomplete.” 20. To accept the argument of Peru to the effect that the aforementioned petition is allegedly inadmissible, inasmuch as at the moment it was lodged the remedies under domestic law had not been exhausted, in spite of the fact that at the present instance, as the Commission is pronouncing on admissibility, those remedies have been exhausted, would imply a formalistic decision totally at odds with the protection of the human rights enshrined in the Convention. Such a decision would also leave the alleged victims in a state of defenselessness, since the Commission would probably be unable to examine their case, even were a new petition concerning the same events to be lodged in the future. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has held that “[I]t is generally accepted that the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and that the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities.” 21. The Commission concludes that the situation that must be taken into consideration in order to determine if the remedies under domestic law have been exhausted is that which exists at the moment of adopting a decision on admissibility. Consequently, the Commission finds that the requirement of exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law provided in Article 46 (1) (a) of the American Convention was met with the decision of the Constitutional Court issued on November 24, 1997, and published on January 12, 1998. 22. With respect to the petition in Case 12.038, the Commission observes that said petition was lodged on July 10, 1998, by which date the remedies under domestic law had been duly exhausted. b. Filing Period 23. The Commission finds that in Case 11.830 the petition was lodged prior to the date of the decision that exhausted domestic remedies, whereas in Case 12.038 the petition was received by the IACHR on July 10, 1998, in other words, before six months had elapsed following publication, on January 12, 1998, of the decision of the Constitutional Court that exhausted the remedies under domestic law. Therefore, the requirement established in Article 46 (1) (b) of the American Convention has been met. c. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 24. The Commission finds that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement, nor is the petition substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Accordingly, the requirements set forth in Articles 46 (1) (c) and 47 (d) have also been met. d. Nature of the violations 25. The Commission believes that the facts alleged by the petitioners, if proven true, could constitute violations of rights protected by the American Convention. IV. CONCLUSIONS 26. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take up the petitions under review, and that, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, said petitions are admissible in the terms set out above. 27. Based on the factual and legal arguments given above, and without prejudging the merits of the case, 4