22. The petitioner also explains that on February 22, he was received in the offices of the Inspector General of the National Police, where he identified his alleged assailants. 23. According to the petitioner, no criminal investigation was initiated as a result of the complaint lodged on August 1, 2002 with the office of the prosecutor of Port-au-Prince, nor was any criminal investigation opened based on the complaint lodged June 27, 2002, by the director of the Justice and Peace Commission with the Chief Inspector General of the National Police of Haiti. 24. In addition, the State has not alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. As the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights clearly indicated, a state that seeks to invoke the failure to exhaust domestic remedies must do so expressly in the first stage of the proceeding. 2 In the instant case, the State did not expressly invoke the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it merely acknowledged receipt of some communications and informed the IACHR of a meeting between the petitioner and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In view of this failure of the State to contest the admissibility of the petition, one can presume a tacit waiver of the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 3 25. In this respect, the Inter-American Court has indicated that the objection of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, if it is to be timely, must be raised in the first stages of the proceeding, failing which one may presume a tacit waiver by the state to avail itself of it. 4 The IACHR concludes that in this case there has been a tacit waiver by the State. 2. Time for submission 26. Pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, the general rule is that a petition must be submitted within six months, counted “from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” In the petition under consideration, the Commission has established a tacit waiver by the State of its right to invoke nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, thus the requirement of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention is not applicable. 27. Nonetheless, the requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and submission within six months of the judgment exhausting domestic remedies, both set forth in the American Convention, are independent. Therefore, the Commission must determine whether the petition under consideration was submitted within a reasonable time. 28. In this regard, the Commission observes that the petitioner states he was arrested without a judicial warrant on June 24, 2002, and was released the next day, without the authorities having carried out a serious investigation to punish the persons responsible. The Commission notes that the original petition was submitted on October 11, 2002. Considering the particular circumstances of the petition under consideration, the Commission considers that it was submitted within a reasonable time. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 29. The Commission understands that the subject matter of the instant petition is not pending settlement before any other international organization nor does it reproduce a petition already 2 See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 1, 2000, paras. 55 ff. 3 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 88. See also IACHR, Report No. 39/96, Case 10,897, Guatemala, October 16, 1996, para. 35; and Report No. 53/96, Case 8,074, Guatemala, December 6, 1996. Annual Report 1996. In addition, see Report No. 25/94, Case 10,508, Guatemala, September 22, 1994. IACHR Annual Report 1994. 4 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 8; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 87; Gangaram Panday Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991, para. 38; Loayza Tamayo Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996, para. 40. 4