false evidence, satisfy the requirements of Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 45. Third, the State argued in its second submission that the petitioner should still exhaust domestic remedies in seeking compensation for any damages. The petitioner, for his part, indicated to the Commission that, at the end of 1999, he brought action for damages against the State and against Dr. José Galeano (the judge who ordered his arrest in 1994), under case 46523/99, "Jenkins, Gabriel Oscar versus the National State, for damages," and that this was being processed by the 10th National Court of Federal Administrative Disputes of Buenos Aires. 46. According to the documentation provided by the petitioner with his communication of October 5, 2000, the motion for damages was partially rejected by the court of first instance on June 8, 2000, accepting the objection of lack of standing filed by the investigating judge who ordered Mr. Jenkins' preventive detention in 1994, on the grounds that no application to withdraw his immunity had been filed pursuant to Articles 115 and 53 of the National Constitution. In that ruling, the judge decided to continue hearing the complaint with respect to the National State, represented in the case by the Ministry of Justice. 47. In light of the information contained in a communication presented to the Executive Secretary of the IACHR by the Mission of the Argentine Republic to the Organization of American States, of February 14, 2003, the Commission understands that the administrative proceedings for damages, which have been underway for more than four years, have still not reached a conclusion at first instance. Under the circumstances, the unjustified delay in the administration of justice provides grounds for invoking the exception of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention. 48. On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that in this case the petitioner has exhausted the remedies available to him within domestic jurisdiction, and that with respect to his claim for damages, the exception of Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention applies. The Commission wishes to point out, as it has done in previous cases, that invoking the exceptions of Article 46 of the Convention to determine the admissibility of the petition does not imply prejudging the merits of the complaint. The criterion that the Commission follows in analyzing the petition at the admissibility stage is of a preliminary nature. Consequently, while the Commission concludes that the circumstances of the case support its admissibility, the causes and consequences that impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed, as 10