7 2. The provisions of paragraphs 1.a and 1.b of this article shall not be applicable when: a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. 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 c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies.” As a preliminary observation, it should be noted that this provision is sui generis, specific or exclusive to the Convention. For example, it does not appear in the same terms in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or in the European Convention on Human Rights, 25 Article 35 of which refers to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in more generally and, also, does not include the specific exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 26 Furthermore, it should also be emphasized that the European Convention establishes that this requirement must be met prior to litigating before the European Court of Human Rights – a judicial body – while, in the case of the American Convention it must be fulfilled prior to lodging the petition before the Commission - a non-judicial entity. And this is relevant insofar as the latter has the power to bring cases before the Court. 27 In other words, the Commission may act as a plaintiff before the Court and, accordingly, does not necessarily share the impartiality that must characterize a judicial body. As a second general comment, it is worth calling attention to the reference made in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention to the circumstance that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The allusion to the such principles recalls that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is established by principles of international law, even prior to or irrespective of the provisions of any treaty, in this case, the Convention, which is why the third preamble of the 25 Nor is it established in the Statute or the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice. Hence, in that sphere, it is only of a jurisprudential nature. “Admissibility criteria. 1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognized rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken. 2. The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that (a) is anonymous; or (b) is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new information. 3. The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 if it considers that: (a) the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, manifestly illfounded, or an abuse of the right of individual application; or (b) the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage, unless respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto requires an examination of the application on the merits and provided that no case may be rejected on this ground which has not been duly considered by a domestic tribunal. 4. The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings.” 27 Art. 61(1) of the Convention: “Only the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.” 26