3 5. The Court has already established clear criteria that must be observed when raising the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Firstly, based on generally recognized principles of international law, to which the rule regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies refers, the respondent State may, either expressly or implicitly, waive the right to raise this objection. Secondly, for the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be held timely, it must be raised at the admissibility stage of the proceeding before the Commission; that is, before any consideration on the merits of the case; otherwise, the State is presumed to have implicitly waived its right to avail itself of it.4 6. The State has reasserted the preliminary objection it raised for the first time in when answering the application, based on the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 7. In their written comments as well as at the public hearing, the Commission and the representatives argued that the preliminary objection raised by the State was not in order. 8. The State and the Commission expressly requested the Court to rule on the preliminary objection and the representatives did not object to such request. 9. The Court reaffirms, as indicated in its constant precedents, that the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be raised before the Commission in a timely manner.5 In this case, it has not been shown that the State has been prevented or precluded from raising said objection before the Commission. The Court will further address this issue in its judgment on the merits, reparations and legal costs. 10. Based on the foregoing, this Court considers appropriate to continue holding the public hearing convened by the Court’s Order dated September 22, 2005 for which purpose its will receive the statements of the witnesses and the reports by the expert witness as well as the written closing arguments on the merits, possible reparations and legal costs in the instant case. THEREFORE, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 4 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 8, para. 49; Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 7, para. 135; and Case of Tibi, supra note 7, para. 49. 5 Cf. Case of the girls Jean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paras. 60 and 61; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 49; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 135. ______________________________________________________________________________