been a party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 30. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention said to have taken place in the territory of a State party to that treaty. In addition, the IACHR is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date when the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae since the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. OTHER ADMISSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 31. In terms of this aspect of admissibility, the Commission observes that in the processing of this matter, at no time did the State invoke the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to the domestic proceedings against Mr. Jorge Rosadío Villavicencio. 32. The IACHR must determine whether the State tacitly waived this objection. 33. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has noted that: “the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed..” 3 Accordingly, the IACHR establishes in respect of the instant case that the Peruvian State has not invoked the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and therefore it tacitly waived it, for having failed to invoke it expressly and in timely fashion in any of the communications sent to the Commission. The Commission considers that the 3 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 1, para. 88; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 3, para. 90; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 2, para. 87; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C Nº 25, para. 40. 9