6 18. This Tribunal,6 as well as the European Court of Human Rights,7 has consistently held that an objection to the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction that is based on the alleged failure of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be raised at the appropriate procedural juncture; otherwise, the State will have lost the possibility of raising that defense before this Tribunal. 19. In the instant case, as is evident from the file of the proceedings before the Commission, on January 23, 2007, the Commission forwarded the petition to the State for it to submit its response within a period of two months, in accordance with Article 30(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. On January 14, 2008, the Commission reiterated a request for information to the State, asking that it respond and submit its observations to the petition within one month. On January 18, 2008, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioner, which was received on February 22, 2008, and transmitted to the State so that it could submit its observations thereto. On March 4, 2008, the Commission adopted the Report on Admissibility Nº 7/08, which was notified to the State on March 24, 2008. The State submitted its first communication to the Commission on July 4, 2008, after the adoption of the Report on Admissibility. 20. Thus, the Court verifies that although the State had numerous procedural opportunities to raise this preliminary objection, it failed to do so until after the adoption of the Commission’s Report on Admissibility. Consequently, in light of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence on this issue,8 the Court concludes that the State failed to raise this objection at the appropriate procedural moment, and it is therefore dismissed. B) Breach of Fourth Instance Rule 21. The State also objected to the admissibility of all claims relating to the alleged victim’s diminished responsibility for the crime of murder and the effectiveness of his legal representation. According to the State, these claims “amount to a thinly disguised attempt to use the Inter-American processes as a fourth instance of appeal and are therefore inadmissible.” The State argued that “[i]nternational human rights jurisprudence is clear and consistent in prohibiting the use of international bodies as a fourth instance of domestic appeal.” Further, “[i]t is well established that bodies such as the Inter-American Commission o[n] Human Rights and this […] Court cannot ‘act as appellate bodies with the authority to examine alleged errors of domestic law or fact that national courts may have committed while acting within their jurisdiction.’” Therefore, “if a petition ‘contains nothing more than the allegation that the domestic court’s decision was wrong or unjust, [the Commission] must apply the fourth instance formula and declare the petition inadmissible ratione materiae.’” In the present case, “the [p]etition is almost identical […] to the Amended Notice of Application, which was submitted by the [p]etitioner’s counsel to the Caribbean Court of Justice. All of the grounds of appeal of the Amended Notice of Application, […] - including arguments on diminished responsibility and the effectiveness of 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 199, paras. 28 and 53, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 20. 7 Cf. ECHR Cases of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp ("Vagrancy") v. Belgium, Judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, para. 55; ECHR Case of Foti and others v. Italy, Judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A, no. 56, para. 46, and ECHR Case of Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, Judgment of 21 June 2007, paras. 90-91. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 6, para. 88; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, paras. 28, 53, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 20.