This also begs the question of whether the “study and initial processing” of the petition is required, if it could be lodged without having previously exhausted the domestic remedies. Certainly, if this step were only demanded at the time of deciding on the admissibility of the petition, one might wonder what would be the point of initially studying the petition. And, furthermore, what would be the reason and the practical effect of the Convention's distinction between the time of submission of the petition and the time of its admissibility. Indeed, if it were considered that the above requirement or rule should be fulfilled at the time the decision on the admissibility of the petition is adopted and not at the moment it is lodged, it is logical to ask what would be the point of the petition itself. It should also be noted that, if the criterion that the above requirement must be fulfilled at the time the petition is presented or supplemented is not followed and that, to the contrary, the argument is adopted that this requirement is determined by the moment in which the Commission rules on the admissibility of the petition, situations of open injustice or arbitrariness would arise. This is because the opportunity to comply with the requirement in question would ultimately depend not on the victim or the petitioner, nor on a rule valid for all, but on the Commission's decision to rule on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the petition, which on many occasions takes years to be adopted and could sometimes be classified as arbitrary. Finally, it is reasonable to presume that, with a more streamlined processing and, therefore, more expeditious rulings by the Commission with respect to the admissibility of the petitions “lodged,” which would most likely require more resources and adequate regulations for that purpose, delays or setbacks in the processing of a considerable number of cases would surely be avoided. D. Consequences in the present case The first consequence of considering - as the Judgment does - the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as a requirement for the admissibility of the petition, is that it ultimately makes it possible that the issue raised in the case with the filing of the petition could vary considerably, transforming its object and seriously affecting the rights of one or both parties to such an extent that the Court ends up ruling on an objection different from the one raised, even changing the case. In fact, what was alleged in this case was, logically, that the international wrong had already been committed on the date of the pertinent petitions 29 and the State duly responded to it, 30 obviously prior to the enactment of Law 8503, “Law on the Opening of Criminal Cassation” and its transitory provision I, of 2006, 31 and also of Law No. 8837 “Creation of an appeals procedure, other reforms to the appeals system and implementation of new rules on oral proceedings in criminal cases,” of 2011. 32 However, the judgment analyzes the objection related to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in order 29 Paras. 3 and 41. 30 Para. 40. 31 Para. 46. 32 Para. 55. 14