24. The State argued that, despite the availability of adequate domestic remedies, the representatives did not proceed to exhaust them and did not demonstrate their exhaustion in their initial petition before the Commission. In relation to the criminal proceedings, it pointed out that at the time when the petition was presented to the Commission, in 2000, the domestic remedies for the punishment of those responsible for the death of Márcia Barbosa had not been exhausted. It indicated that some of the domestic remedies were exhausted during the processing of the case before the Commission, many years after the case was notified to the State. It also affirmed that, during the processing of the case before the Commission, the domestic remedies for the protection of all the rights allegedly violated were made available to the alleged victims. It emphasized that there were several adequate and effective domestic remedies for the clarification of the events and responsibilities, and that there were no State actions aimed at impeding access to these remedies. It added that some of these remedies were even exhausted without any unjustified delay. It further argued that the exception to the exhaustion of remedies of unwarranted delay was not present, since the complexity of the case justified the time elapsed between the facts and the conviction. 25. The representatives emphasized that the analysis of the admissibility of a case is primarily the responsibility of the Inter-American Commission, except in cases of serious errors that violate the right to defense of the parties, which did not occur in this case. They indicated that the State, in its first statements before the Commission, made no mention of the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, which would have implied a tacit waiver of this preliminary objection. They also pointed out that the only defense of the State in relation to the admissibility of the case was presented on July 17, 2007, days before the approval of the Admissibility Report. They affirmed that, both on the date of submission of the case and on the date of the admissibility analysis by the Commission, the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46(2)(b) and (c) of the American Convention, respectively, were presented. The representatives also argued that, at the time when the initial petition was presented to the Commission, the exception of the impossibility of exhausting domestic remedies had arisen, since the Legislative Assembly of the state of Paraíba had twice failed to authorize the initiation of criminal proceedings. They also alleged that, at the time of approval of the Admissibility Report on the case, there had been unwarranted delay in the judicial proceedings. Finally, they pointed out that the State would be violating the principle of estoppel by not having argued before the Commission that the unwarranted delay should be analyzed taking into account the “[…] time elapsed between the date of the facts and the time of the presentation of the petition […]” and by alleging it now before the Court. 26. The Commission recalled that domestic remedies must be exhausted, or else one of the exceptions in Article 46(2) of the American Convention must be applicable, at the time of the decision on the admissibility of the case, and not necessarily at the time the petition was lodged. It emphasized that, in its Admissibility Report, it had expressed its opinion on the applicability of the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, regarding unwarranted delay, since it was not until July 2005 that the formal accusation against the then state deputy was filed,19 and that, at the time when the report was prepared, more than eight years had elapsed since the homicide in question without the responsible party having been determined. The Commission considered the deadline for the presentation of the petition to be reasonable, since two years had passed since the murder of Ms. Barbosa de Souza, without the corresponding domestic judicial process having been carried out. Regarding possible civil remedies, it indicated that did not have the opportunity to analyze them during the admissibility stage of the case, since the State had only mentioned in a generic manner According to the Commission’s Admissibility Report, cited in its Merits Report, the formal accusation (“complaint”) was presented in July 2005. However, from the body of evidence it appears that the correct date is March 2003. 19 -10-