B. Alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 22. The State pointed out that not all of the former employees of the Judiciary filed a motion for reconsideration of their dismissal. It also considered that other means were available to challenge these dismissals, such as a constitutional action of amparo or the ordinary lawsuit for reinstatement, which only some of the former employees used. Thus, it argued that all of the alleged victims should have exhausted the motion for reconsideration, the amparo or the ordinary reinstatement procedure, in order to clarify their legal situation in the national courts. 23. In his observations, the representative argued that the discussion of whether or not there were violations of the rights established in the Convention by the State of Guatemala against the workers of the Judiciary should take place in an oral and public trial, not by means of preliminary objections. In his final arguments, he noted that the State did not raise this objection during the admissibility stage before the Commission. 24. The Commission, for its part, argued that the State did not raise the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the admissibility stage, and therefore this objection is inadmissible. It also noted that the petitioners filed a series of appeals to challenge the declaration of illegality of the strike, as well as against the dismissal order, and therefore the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies was met. It added that the State did not demonstrate that the remedies it invoked were suitable and effective. B.2. Considerations of the Court 25. The Court recalls that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented to the Commission during the admissibility stage of the case. 11 In order to do so, the State must, first of all, clearly specify before the Commission, during the admissibility stage of the case, the remedies that, in its view, have not yet been exhausted. Furthermore, the arguments that give content to the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage must correspond to those raised before the Court. 12 26. However, in the instant case, the State did not argue the alleged existence of other mechanisms to challenge the dismissals that were not exhausted by all the workers during the admissibility stage before the Commission. Indeed, the initial petition was filed before the Commission on September 7, 2000; 13 subsequently, in a brief filed on November 28, 2000, the petitioners corrected some points of their original petition. 14 This petition was forwarded to the State on February 1, 2002, and the State was given two months to submit its observations. 15 On April 2, 2002, the State submitted its observations on the petition. However, no mention was made in this brief of the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Prior to the issuance 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 22. 12 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 29, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 22. Cf. Initial petition filed by CALDH before the Inter-American Commission on September 7, 2000 (evidence file, folios 651 to 668). 13 14 Cf. Observations on the initial petition filed by CALDH before the Inter-American Commission the November 28, 2000 (evidence file, folios 431 to 450). 15 Cf. Note of the Inter-American Commission of February 1, 2002 (evidence file, folio 408). 8