8 21. Based on the foregoing, and having regard to the diverse nature of the arguments formulated by the State, aimed, on the one hand, at demonstrating that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted and on the other, at arguing that the Court does not have jurisdiction to examine the direct justiciability of the right to social security based on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention,9 this Court understands that these assertions have the nature of a preliminary objection. A. Objection regarding the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies A.1 Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 22. The State filed an objection regarding the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies based on Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. It held that when the petition was lodged, the domestic remedies had not been exhausted, since the second amparo proceeding was still in progress, and was decided by the Constitutional Court on November 10, 1999. In addition, it indicated that the dispute in this case concerned the process of execution of the amparo judgment of February 2, 1993, which had not concluded at the time of submitting the petition; therefore, the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be analyzed in relation to the judicial execution proceeding. The State asserted that in the instant case there was no unwarranted delay, given that the petition was presented only two years and four months after the execution process had begun on December 18, 1995. It emphasized that this process was archived in 1999, given the lack of procedural activity by the parties, and that the actions only resumed in 2008, the date from which the time should be counted. Thus, it concluded that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted at the time when the petition was filed and that no objection was filed under the provisions in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 23. The Commission indicated that the preliminary objection was inadmissible because it was timebarred, since it was not filed during the admissibility stage. It held that the State presented a brief during that stage, dated March 1, 2010, containing a description of the domestic proceedings, but it did not allege non-compliance with the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies. In addition, the Commission argued that, unlike the view held by the State and in line with the Court’s consistent case law, the analysis of exhaustion of domestic remedies or the application of any of the exceptions in this regard, should have taken place at the time when the case was declared admissible, and not during the presentation of the petition. The Commission argued that in the instant case, when the Admissibility Report was adopted on July 16, 2010, there had already been an unwarranted delay of more than 17 years in the process of compliance with the amparo judgment, and therefore the objection contemplated in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention was applicable. 24. The representatives agreed with the Commission that the preliminary objection was timebarred, arguing that the State had tacitly waived the objection by not invoking it, clearly and precisely, at the first appropriate procedural opportunity, that is, during the admissibility stage before the Commission. They asserted that “in its communication of February 26, 2010 (prior to the Admissibility Report)” the State merely submitted reports and documents on the facts related to the case, omitting to invoke any objection. Furthermore, in agreement with the Commission, the representatives held that the analysis of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and the configuration of its objections should have been carried out bearing in mind the adoption of the Admissibility Report. In this regard they stated that at the time of issuing that Report, the domestic remedies had merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 340, para. 17. 9 It is important to emphasize that in the case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, the Court analyzed arguments of this nature through a preliminary objection ratione materiae. Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras. 12 to 19.