the instant case its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights to judicial guarantees and protection. B. a. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies 24. Article 46 of the Convention stipulates that for a case to be admitted will be required, “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” However, the Convention provides for exceptions to this requirement when the domestic law does not provide de facto or de jure remedies. Indeed, Article 46(2) specifies that the above is the case when the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. In the instant case, it emerges from what is documented by the petitioner, and not challenged by the State, that, in practice, the petitioner was denied access to those remedies; that the authorities in charge of pressing forward proceedings failed even to institute them, much less complete them; that the initial investigations, the basis for possible remedies, were obstructed by agents of the State; and that an Amnesty Law was interpreted by the authorities as relieving them of the obligation to prosecute those responsible. 25. As indicated by the Court, the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies results, following the principles of international law: … in the first place that this is a rule that may be waived, either expressly or by implication, by the State having the right to invoke it as this Court has already recognized ( see Viviana Gallardo et al. Judgment of November 13,1981, Nº G 101/81, Series A, para. 26). Second, the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed.8 26. Petitioners invoked in their original complaint the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, based on the inexistence of an effective remedy and in unjustified delay in the proceedings. Consequently, the burden of the proof to deny this statement by the petitioners becomes a responsibility of the State. By not answering the repeated requests for comments to the complaint, the State has not controverted these allegations and renounced its right to oppose this exception. The Commission concludes that the requirement in relation with the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been satisfied in the instant case. b. Period for presentation of the petition 27. In the original complaint petitioner explained the reasons to consider the presentation done within a reasonable period. Petitioner alleged that the case was presented ten years after the originating facts, an that during the first four years of that period the Government was ruled or de facto controlled by a military regime, reason that impeded the initiation of the domestic remedies. Moreover, the amnesty established by Parliament in 1987 had voided the possibility for the victims to obtain due judicial reparation. After 1991, already under a constitutionally elected government, government representatives declared in several opportunities their lack of interest in pursuing their obligation to investigate and to prosecute those responsible, and to make reparations to the victims. Petitioner alleged that during all that period, representatives of the victims made repeated attempts to spur the authorities into action to no avail. 8 I.A. Court HR. Caso Godinez Cruz, Preliminary Objections (Judgment of June 26,1987) Series C.Nº 3 para. 90. 5