State prior to May 26, 1999, even if the effects of those acts continue or are not manifested until after that date. 16. In respect of acts taken by the State wholly after May 26, 1999, the State remains bound by the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and the Commission’s authority to supervise the State’s compliance with that instrument, having deposited its instrument of ratification of the OAS Charter on March 17, 1967 and thereby becoming an OAS member state.6 17. In the present case, the Petitioners claim that the State has violated Mr. Caesar’s rights under the American Convention. The claims in the petition relate to acts alleged to have been taken by the State prior to the effective date of its denunciation. The alleged victim of the alleged violations is a natural person, and his complaints relate to events alleged to have occurred in the territory of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission is therefore competent to examine the alleged violations of the American Convention on Human Rights presented in this petition. B. Admissibility 1. Duplication of Procedures 18. According to the Petitioners, the matters complained of in this petition have not previously been submitted for examination by any other international organization. The State has not provided any observations on the issue of duplication of procedures. The Commission therefore finds that the petition is not inadmissible under Article 33(1) of its Rules of Procedure. 2. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 19. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention and Article 31(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure specify that, in order for a case to be admitted, remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law. 20. Article 46(2) of the Convention and Article 31(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure provide, however, that the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement shall not apply 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, when 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 when there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under domestic remedies. Moreover, the jurisprudence of the inter-American system makes clear that the rule which requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed for the benefit of the State, because the rule seeks to excuse the State from having to respond to charges before an international body for acts imputed to it before it has had an opportunity to remedy them by internal means. According to the Inter-American Court, the requirement is thus considered a means of defense and, as such, waivable, even tacitly. Further, a waiver, once effected, is irrevocable.7 In the face of such a waiver, the Commission is not obliged to consider any potential bars to the admissibility of a petitioner’s claims that might have properly been raised by a state relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 6 See Statute of the IACHR, Article 20 (providing in respect of those OAS member states that are not parties to the American Convention on Human Rights that the Commission may examine communications submitted to it and any other available information, to address the government of such states for information deemed pertinent by the Commission, and to make recommendations to such states, when it finds this appropriate, in order to bring about more effective observance of fundamental human rights). See also I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, July 14, 1989, Ser. A Nº 10 (1989), paras. 35-45; I/A Comm. H.R., James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton v. United States, Case 9647, Res. 3/87, 22 September 1987, Annual Report 1986-87, paras. 46-49. 7 I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, para. 40. 4