14 The Inter-American Commission requested the Court to “reject summarily” this preliminary objection as “unfounded and time-barred,” and alleged that: (a) The State has stated expressly that domestic remedies have been exhausted. “[T]hus there is no dispute in this regard”; (b) The objection that domestic remedies have not been exhausted “should be rejected because it disregards an explicit decision of the Commission […] in Report 125/01 of December 3, 2001,” declaring the petition admissible. The review of matters of admissibility by the Court “would appear to jeopardize procedural equality and create disparity between the parties”; and (c) The Admissibility Report makes it clear that the State did not exercise its right to submit information, make comments, and contest or question the requirements for the petition’s admissibility at the procedural opportunity established in Article 48 of the Convention and Article 30 of the Rules of Procedure. According to the Court’s case law and treaty-based norms, objections to the exhaustion of domestic remedies should be filed before the Commission. 70. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims The representatives requested the Court to “reject the arguments of the State because they were totally unfounded” and indicated that: (a) The State had accepted that “the complainants have exhausted domestic remedies under the Constitution and the Electoral Act”; (b) “It is evident that the State has interpreted Article 46 of the American Convention erroneously.” The requirements for the admissibility of a petition are to be found in Article 46(1) of the Convention and the exceptions to them are established in the second paragraph of this Article. “If, as in the instant case, domestic remedies have been exhausted and the petition has been lodged within the period of six months, the second paragraph of Article 46 is not applicable”; and (c) The State did not submit comments on the initial petition, or present valid arguments that would justify reopening the discussion on admissibility. Considerations of the Court 71. In the second preliminary objection, Nicaragua does not allege the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, but submits arguments on issues related to merits. By referring to the existence “of domestic laws [...concerning] due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that are alleged to have been violated,” and indicating that, in this case, “the situations described in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (2) of […] Article [46 of the American Convention] do not exist,” it is, in fact, alluding to the merits of the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 72. When deciding on the merits of the case, the Court will bear in mind the State’s arguments with regard to this second preliminary objection, because they dispute the existence of the alleged violations.