of the American Convention, because Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION A. Objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies A.1. Arguments of the parties and observations of the Commission 17. The State argued that the presumed victims had not filed or exhausted domestic remedies and, therefore, the Court should abstain from hearing the case pursuant to Article 46 of the American Convention. In this regard, it asserted that the representatives had not availed themselves of Articles 70 and 71 of the Law on Amparo, Habeas Corpus and Constitutionality. Consequently, the State alleged that the case was inadmissible, because at the time of the facts, procedural remedies existed that autorized the presumed victims to appeal for clarification or expansion of the amparo decision. 18. The Commission affirmed that the State had not filed the preliminary objection at the proper procedural moment, because it had merely urged the presumed victims to continue using the remedies that existed in the domestic jurisdiction, without indicating which remedies should be exhausted. Consequently, it alleged that the objection was not filed as required by the Convention and, therefore, was inadmissible. Furthermore, the Commission alleged that the State had not provided evidence as to the pertinence and effectiveness of the request for clarification or expansion of the amparo and, thus, the objection was substantially inadmissible. 19. The representatives affirmed that the preliminary objection filed by the State did not fulfill either the formal or the substantial aspects established by the Convention and the Court’s case law. Regarding the formal aspect, they argued that the objection was not filed at the proper procedural moment – that is, at the time of the Commission’s decision on admissibility. Regarding the substantial aspect, they indicated that the State had failed to prove that the available remedies were adequate, appropriate and effective. Consequently, they asked the Court to reject the preliminary objection filed by the State. A.2. Considerations of the Court 20. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that, for ädmission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45, “it is necessary that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.”11 21. The Court has developed standards to analyze an objection based on presumed failure to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. First, it has interpreted the objection as a means of defense available to the State and, as such, the State may waive it either expressly or tacitly. Second, the objection must be filed at the proper the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.” Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 63, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 39. 11 7