32. The foregoing appears evident and, if it is mentioned, it is to underscore – without leaving any room for doubt – that the reference that the Court’s case law has made to this rule being “conceived in the interests of the State” does not mean that the State is the holder of the obligation to prove that it has been complied with. Therefore, the one obliged to do so can only be the presumed victim, his or her representative, or the petitioner and it is compliance with that obligation that allows the State to answer the petition lodged before the Commission and, possibly, to present the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. E. Correct moment to lodge the petition 33. It should also be repeated that the rule of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies logically constitutes a requirement that should be met before the petition is lodged before the Commission and that the latter record that such remedies have been exhausted or that it was impossible to do so. 34. Indeed, it should be recalled that the Articles 46(1)(a) and 47(b) of the Convention transcribed above refer to the “petition or communication lodged”; that is an instantaneous act that occurs at a determined moment and that does not extend over time. The same can be said of Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention, which establishes that: “When the Commission receives a petition or communication alleging violation of any of the rights protected by this Convention, it shall proceed as follows: (a) If it considers the petition or communication admissible, it shall request information from the government of the State indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations and shall furnish that government a transcript of the pertinent portions of the petition or communication. This information shall be submitted within a reasonable period to be determined by the Commission in accordance with the circumstances of each case.” 35. Thus, the Convention indicates that the “petition or communication lodged,” the “pertinent portions” of which are forwarded to the State concerned, which means that it is the petition that should indicate compliance with the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies or the impossibility of this due to any of the circumstances established in Article 46(2), also transcribed above, so that the State may respond and potentially file the corresponding objection, which means that it is when the petition is lodged that this should already have occurred. 36. This interpretation is supported by Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, which indicates that the petition should have been: “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 37. Evidently, it should be understood that the said final judgment is the one delivered on the final remedy that was filed, without there being any other that could be filed. In other words, the time frame indicated to lodge the petition is calculated from the moment of notification of the final judgment of the domestic authorities or courts on the remedies filed before them, which are, consequently, those that may have given rise to the international responsibility of the State, which obviously means that, when the petition is “lodged,” they should have been exhausted. 38. The foregoing is reinforced by the content of the said Article 46(1)(a) indicating the requirement that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted”; in other words it alludes to something that has already happened before the lodging of the corresponding petition. 10