8 31. The Court summarizes the State’s arguments as follows: a) Under Article 46 of the American Convention and articles 44 and 45 of the Commission’s Regulations, in order for the Commission to admit a petition, the remedies under domestic laws must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, except when the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not establish such remedies, the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, or there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment on the aforementioned remedies; b) The Peruvian legal system has provisions governing the rights involved in the petition and has the jurisdictional bodies and proceedings to guarantee exercise of those rights; a civil action to have a person declared missing and/or presumed dead, and the remedy of habeas corpus. The claimants, however, did not go to the regular courts, disregarded the laws stipulated in the Civil Code and failed to have the persons declared officially missing and/or presumed dead which, had they done so, would have unleashed the corresponding chain of events. Had the claimants availed themselves of these means, they would have had an expeditious means of seeing to their interests in inheritance-related matters. These arguments were made again at the public hearing; c) As for the remedy of habeas corpus, the State’s argument was that “if exercise of the remedy of habeas corpus was not prohibited, then it [the Commission] can hardly conclude that [… application of the] decrees [No. 012-86 IN and No. 006-86 JUS of June 2 and 6, 1986, respectively] implied that said remedy was suspended, and even less that it was ineffective”, and d) Article 8 of the Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act [Ley de Hábeas Corpus y Amparo] (Law No. 23,506) provides that the “final decision constitutes res judicata only when it is favorable to the party filing the remedy.” The ruling that led to the filing of this application was delivered in accordance with the laws in force, as required under Article 6.2 of the Act, which provides that: “Remedies are not admissible against a decision resulting from a regular proceeding.” The interests of the next of kin of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera were poorly represented, which made any determination of the merits in this case impossible. 32. The Court will summarize the Commission’s arguments as follows: a) The remedies under domestic laws were duly pursued and exhausted, in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention; b) The State had ample opportunity to raise this objection during the proceedings with the Commission, but did not. The State was notified of the petition on May 19, 1987, yet only after repeated requests were made did the State finally, on September 29, 1989, report that judicial proceedings were under way in the military courts. It was later learned that the proceedings had concluded on July 20, 1989; and