5 indicated, inter alia, that the State’s allegations were “groundless, because they do not demonstrate that the domestic remedies that should supposedly have been exhausted would be effective.” 15. The Convention grants the Court full jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to a case submitted to its jurisdiction, even those of a procedural nature on which the possibility of it exercising its jurisdiction are based.9 16. Article 46(1)(a) of the Inter-American Convention stipulates that admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention requires that the remedies under domestic law shall have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 17. In this regard, the Court has maintained that the respondent State can expressly or tacitly waive invoking the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The tacit waiver occurs when the State fails to file this objection at the appropriate time before the Commission.10 18. In the instant case, the Court observes that the State did not allege, at the appropriate procedural opportunity, that the recourses to appeal the decisions on habeas corpus and remand in custody, and also the civil action for damages, had not been exhausted. Accordingly, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the Court considers that the State tacitly waived a means of defense that the Convention establishes in its favor and implicitly admitted the inexistence of these recourses or their opportune exhaustion.11 Consequently, it decides to reject the first preliminary objection. B) THE FOURTH LEVEL OF JURISDICTION FORMULA 19. In the State’s opinion, the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the instant case, because this is “reserved to the domestic courts of justice.” The State indicated that “[t]he Inter-American Court cannot examine the contesting of judicial decisions [such as orders for material or personal precautionary measures], because to do so would be to disregard the subsidiary or complementary nature of the system.” According to the State, the “basic principle” of the fourth level of jurisdiction formula is that the organs of the Inter-American system “cannot review judgments delivered by the national courts, acting within their own sphere of competence and applying the appropriate judicial guarantees, unless it is considering the possibility that there may have been a violation of the Convention.” 20. The Commission stated that the State’s arguments on this point “do not provide even the minimum grounds for a preliminary objection,” and added that it had “lodged 9 Cf. Case of Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago. Preliminary objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 80; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 66, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 121. 10 Cf. Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No. 101/81, para. 26; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28 , 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 51. 11 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, para. 40; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosicov. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 64, and Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al., supra note 10, para. 53.