12 Moreover, the State alleged that an effective legal remedy is available under Article 226 of Suriname’s Code of Civil Procedure, which institutes a “summary proceedings procedure” for cases that require immediate urgency. The State asserted that the alleged victims chose not to make use of all these available remedies under national legislation before filing the petition with the Commission. In addition, the State maintained that the fact that the petition lodged with the President of the Republic pursuant to Article 41(2) of the Forest Management Act did not have a favorable outcome does not in and of itself denote either lack of domestic remedies or exhaustion of all available and effective remedies. 42. In the present case, the alleged victims recognized that they did not exhaust the domestic remedies mentioned by the State supra. Rather, they contend that those remedies are inadequate and ineffective to address the issues presented to this Court. Instead, the alleged victims filed four petitions with the State regarding the present case: two were lodged with the President of Suriname pursuant to Article 41(1)(b) of the 1992 Forest Management Act, and the other two under Article 22 of the 1987 Suriname Constitution that recognizes the right to petition public authorities. None of these formal complaints were given a substantive reply. Thus, the question is whether the alleged victims should have additionally or concurrently exhausted the domestic remedies mentioned by the State. 43. The Court has already developed clear guidelines for the analysis of an objection regarding an alleged failure of exhaustion of domestic remedies.39 Firstly, the objection has been understood by the Court to be a defense available to States and, as such, it may be expressly or tacitly waived. Secondly, in order for the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be timely, it must be pled in the State’s first submission before the Commission; otherwise, it is presumed that the State has tacitly waived this argument. Thirdly, the Court has asserted that a State lodging this objection must specify the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and demonstrate that these remedies are applicable and effective. 44. In its fourth submission before the Commission on August 16, 2002, the State first raised the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and did not explicitly specify which alleged domestic remedies the alleged victims had not pursued and exhausted. In a subsequent submission of May 23, 2003, the State made reference to the existence of “a number of articles in the Suriname Civil Code […] on the basis of which petitioner could have instituted actions”. It referred, in particular, to Articles 1386, 1387, 1388, 1392, and 1393 of its Civil Code. In its answer to the application before the Court, the State additionally mentioned the alleged non-exhaustion of the remedy available under Article 226 of its Civil Code. The Court notes that the State did not raise, in its first submission in the proceedings before the Commission, that the alleged victims failed to exhaust the possible available remedies under Articles 226, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1392, and 1393 of its Civil Code. damage caused by their servants and employees in the performance of the work for which they have used them”. Cf. Civil Code of Suriname (case file of appendices to the application and appendix 1, appendix 4, folio 51). 37 “Article 1392: 1. Deliberate or imprudent injury or maiming of any part of the body, entitles the injured party to claim not only compensation of the costs of recovery, but also those of the damage caused by the injury or maiming. 2. These as well shall be valued in accordance with the mutual position and wealth of the persons and the circumstances. 3. This last provision shall in general be applicable in the valuation of the damage arisen from any offence committed against the person”. Cf. Answer of the State (merits, volume II, folio 335). 38 “Article 1393: 1. The civil action relating to defamation shall be used to compensate the damage and to mend the prejudice to the name or reputation. 2. The judge shall, in valuing this, have regard to the lesser or greater degree of the insult, as well as on the quality, position and wealth of both party and the circumstances.” Cf. Answer of the State (merits, volume II, folio 336). 39 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 26, para. 88; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 51, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 25, para. 64.