34 claiming failure to pursue and exhaust the remedies under domestic law to prosper; s) a petition of habeas corpus would not protect Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser’s right to personal liberty in the face of the April 3, 2001 court order; his failure to comply with that court order within the time period that the Criminal Court specified could have resulted in indictment on charges of contempt of authority, as provided in Article 307 of the Penal Code. The court could have sentenced him to prison; and t) the petition seeking habeas corpus relief was not an adequate and effective procedural remedy that Mr. Vargas Rohrmoser was required to exhaust before turning to the inter-American system, since under Costa Rica’s constitutional procedural system, petitions of habeas corpus are not permitted against judgments delivered by criminal courts or against criminal court orders or acts. Considerations of the Court 79. The broad terms of the wording of the Convention indicate that the Court exercises full jurisdiction over matters pertaining to a case, which includes competence to rule on the procedural prerequisites that are the basis for its authority to hear a case. 24 80. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that for the Commission to admit a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 81. The Court has established criteria that have to be taken into account in the instant case. Firstly, the respondent State may expressly or tacitly waive invocation of the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies. 25 Secondly, in order to be timely, the objection that domestic remedies have not been exhausted should be raised during the first stages of the proceeding or, to the contrary, it will be presumed that the interested State has waived its use tacitly. 26 Thirdly, in previous cases the Court has held that non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is purely an admissibility issue and that the State that alleges non-exhaustion must indicate which domestic remedies should be exhausted and provide evidence of their effectiveness. 27 24 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 20, para. 65; Case of 19 Merchants. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 27; and Case of Constantine et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 71. 25 Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53; Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C No. 25, para. 40; and Case of Castillo-Páez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, para. 40. 26 Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections, supra note 25, para. 53; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 56; and Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Preliminary Objections, supra note 25, para. 40. 27 Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections, supra note 25, para. 53; Case of Durand and Ugarte, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of 28 May 1999. Series C. No. 50, para.