Therefore, as regards those violations of the Declaration, the Commission shall refer only to the provisions of the Convention. 16. In view of the foregoing, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights contained in Articles 8, 15, 23, 24, and 25 of the American Convention. C. Admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 17. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that one of the requirements for admitting a petition is “that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 18. The petitioners allege that they have exhausted domestic remedies. 19. The Commission observes that the State has not raised any objection arguing that this requirement has not been met, which is tantamount to a tacit waiver of the right to call into question or challenge the admissibility of the complaint. In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the petition analyzed satisfies the requirements set forth at Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. Further, the Commission verifies that the remedies provided for by Nicaraguan legislation for such cases have been exhausted. D. Time period for submission 20. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that one of the requirements for the admissibility of a petition is that it must be “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 21. In the petition under study, the IACHR has established that there has been a tacit waiver on the part of the Nicaraguan State of its right to invoke the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies; accordingly, the requirement of Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention does not apply. 22. Nonetheless, the Convention requirements for exhaustion of domestic remedies and submission within six months of notification of the judgment exhausting domestic remedies are independent. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission must determine whether the petition under study was submitted within a reasonable time. In this regard, the IACHR observes that the original communication from the petitioner was received April 26, 2001. Considering the particular circumstances of the petition under analysis, especially considering that the Supreme Court, on October 26, 2000, gave notice of the resolution that declared the amparo action filed by YATAMA to be unfounded, the IACHR considers that it was submitted within a reasonable time. 23. In view of the foregoing, the Commission determines that the petition analyzed meets the requirement set out at Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. E. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 24. Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention establish as admissibility requirements that the subject matter of the petition or communication must not be pending before another international body for settlement, and that it not be substantially the same as a prior petition already examined by the Commission or by another international organization. 25. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of this petition is pending before another international procedure for settlement, or that it reproduces a petition already examined by the Commission or by any other international organization. As the State has failed to answer, no challenge has been raised alleging failure to satisfy this requirement. 26. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4