15 State. In the case of State Parties to the American Convention that have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, upon notifying the petitioner, the Commission shall give him or her one month to present his or her position as to whether the case should be submitted to the Court. When the petitioner is interested in the petition of the case he or she should present the following: a. the position of the victim or the victim’s family members, if different from that of the petitioner; b. the personal data relative to the victim and the victim’s family members; c. the reasons why he or she considers that the case should be referred to the Court; d. the documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence available; and e. the claims concerning reparations and costs. 63. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Court dismisses the second preliminary objection raised by the State. * * * 64. The Court notes that, though the State has not raised the formal objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, it has pointed out, inter alia, that “[t]he representatives of the victim’s next of kin who acted as private prosecutors, have not filed the remedies available thereto in order to submit the decision on this matter to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile.” In this regard, the Court reaffirms the criteria concerning the filing of the objection for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies, which are to be considered in the instant case. Firstly, the Court has pointed out that the matter regarding the failure to exhaust remedies is one of pure admissibility and that the State which alleges it must express which domestic remedies should be exhausted, as well as prove the effectiveness thereof. Secondly, for the objection for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies to be held timely, it should be filed at the admissibility stage of the proceeding before the Commission, that is, before considering the merits of the case; otherwise, the State shall be assumed to have waived constructively its right to resort to it. Thirdly, the respondent State may waive, either expressly or implicitly, the right to raise an objection to exhaust the domestic remedies.12 65. The Court has noted that during the proceeding before the Commission the State did not invoke the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies (supra para. 7). Therefore, as a result of having failed to raise the procedural objection for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies in due time, the Court concludes that the State –by virtue of the estoppel principle- is hindered from filing it before the Court,13 as it has implicitly waived it. Therefore, it dismisses the argument of the State regarding the lack of exhaustion of the domestic remedies. 12 13 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 124. Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 38. Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, paras. 56 and 57; and Case of Herrera-Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 83.