1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states that in order for a complaint presented to the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the national authorities to become aware of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, have the opportunity to rectify it before the matter is brought to an international body. 37. As is inferred from the principles of international law reflected in the precedents established by the Commission and the Inter-American Court, the accused State may either expressly or tacitly renounce invocation of this rule.5 Secondly, in order for an objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be timely, it must be raised during the early phases of processing before the Commission; otherwise it is assumed that the State has tacitly renounced use of such an objection.6 Thirdly, according to the applicable burden of proof, a State alleging non-exhaustion must indicate which domestic remedies need to be exhausted and provide evidence of their effectiveness. 7 5 IACHR, Report Nº 69/05, petition 960/03, Admissibility, Iván Eladio Torres, Argentina, October 13, 2005, para. 42; I/A Court H.R., Ximenes Lopes Case. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 5; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 49; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 135. 6 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 56; and I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C No. 25, para. 40. The Commission and the Court have established that “the initial stages of the proceedings” should be understood to be “the stage of admissibility of the case before the Commission, in other words, before any consideration of the merits […].” See, e.g., IACHR Report Nº 71/05, petition 543/04, Admissibility, Ever de Jesús Montero Mindiola, Colombia, October 13, 2005, which cites I/A Court H.R., Herrera Ulloa Case. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 81. 7 IACHR, Report Nº 32/05, petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luís Rolando Cuscul Pivaral and others affected by HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 33-35; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, para. 53; Durand and Ugarte Case.