11 Furthermore, Article 31(1)(c) of said Rules of Procedure establishes that “(t)he Commission, acting initially through its Executive Secretariat, shall receive and carry out the initial processing of the petitions submitted to it, in accordance with the following rules: if it accepts, in principle, the admissibility, it shall request information from the government of the State concerned, transcribing the relevant parts of the petition.” Consequently, the steps taken by the Executive Secretariat, acting on behalf of the Commission, as regards the petition that has been “lodged” are not limited merely to verifying whether it includes the required information; rather, it must carry out the “study and initial processing” of the petition, provided that it “fulfills all the requirements set forth,” including, of course, the most important, namely that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” Thus, the Commission, acting through its Executive Secretariat, must carry out an initial control of conventionality of the petition, ensuring that it meets the requirements established in the Convention in order to be considered “lodged.” From the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that the domestic remedies must have been exhausted before the petition is lodged before the Commission; otherwise, the logic and need for the “study and initial processing” of the petition by the Commission's Executive Secretariat could not be understood, or the reason why the petitioner might be required to complete the petition or to indicate the steps taken to exhaust domestic remedies. Furthermore, the time frame indicated for the presentation of the petition would be meaningless. Lastly, bearing in mind that the Commission’s function consists of studying the petition, requesting its completion, and processing it, it must be assumed that all of this must be carried out in keeping with the terms in which the petition has been “lodged.” Thus, it can be affirmed that, just as “it is not the task of the Court, or of the Commission, to identify ex officio the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted, so that it is not incumbent on the international organs to rectify the lack of precision of the State’s arguments,” 36 it is also not their task to rectify the petition or accord it a broader scope than the one it expresses and requires. Thus, the Commission must abide by what is requested of it. The most it can do in this regard “(i)f a petition does not meet the requirements of these Rules” is to “request the petitioner or his or her representative to fulfill them.” This thesis is supported by the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure to the effect that the Commission “shall refrain from considering petitions that are lodged after six months from the date on which the alleged victim has been notified of the decision that exhausted the domestic remedies.” In other words, the Commission must also consider the date on which the alleged violation occurred, which obviously must have happened prior to the submission of the petition. In short, the Commission's role when a petition is lodged confirms that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies must be fulfilled before it acts. D. Response or observations of the State 36 Para. 46.