date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. 30. The Commission has ratione loci competence to hear the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party thereto. The IACHR has ratione temporis competence inasmuch as the duty to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was in force for the State at the time the violations alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 31. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that admission of a petition shall be subject to the requirement “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law”.5 Both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”) and the Commission have reiterated that “(…) under the generally recognized principles of international law and international practice, the rule which requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed for the benefit of the State, for that rule seeks to excuse the State from having to respond to charges before an international body for acts imputed to it before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by internal means.6 Furthermore, the Court has held that in order for the objection that domestic remedies have not been exhausted to be valid, it should be raised in a timely manner, that is, during the initial stages of the proceeding before the Commission, lest it be presumed that the interested State has tacitly waived its use.7 32. In the instant case, the petitioners have shown that on September 14, 2000 the Supreme Court of Argentina rejected the appeal (recurso de queja) interposed by Mr. Kimel’s counsel against the conviction returned on March 17, 1999 by the National Chamber of Appeals for Criminal and Correctional Matters in and for the Federal Capital. At that point, remedies under domestic law were exhausted. 33. In addition, while the State reserved its right to object to the admissibility of the petition in its communication of April 16, 2003, to date, it has yet to refute in any way the arguments of the petitioners that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 34. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the suitable remedies as regards the alleged violations were appropriately exhausted. 5 See I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Articles 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46 (2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, (Ser. A) No.11(1990), para.17. 6 See I/A Court H.R., Decision in the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al., November 13, 1981, Ser. A N° G 101/81, paragraph 26. 7 See, for example, I/A Court H.R., The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 1, 2000, (Ser. C) No. 66, paras. 53 and 54.