15 waived the right to file such argument.33 In the third place, the respondent State may waive, either expressly or impliedly, the right to allege the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.34 41. In the instant case, the State submitted different briefs before the Commission, among them: a) in the State’s first observations submitted on December 11, 1998 before the Commission,35 the State mentioned that the Municipality of Quito had solved the administrative acts related to the case and had intervened in the judicial proceedings in defense of the municipal entity. Furthermore, the State referred to the different proceedings and remedies that were instituted at the different administrative and judicial instances of the domestic jurisdiction;36 b) in the second report filed with the Commission on September 22, 1999, the State informed, one more time, on the proceedings related to the case. Regarding the condemnation proceedings, the Stated pointed out that such proceedings were not finished. It further alleged that the petitioners have used the administrative remedies and that, in fact, there was no ruling, “but not due to the municipal behavior […] but for the serious problems afflicting the administration of justice in Ecuador […];”37 c) in the third report to the Commission, of January 26, 2001, the State reasserted the criterion regarding the fact that the legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners have no final ruling at the domestic level, therefore the argument of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the State was not irrelevant, as the petitioners believed since this is a sine qua non requisite for the admission of the case. Moreover, it made a general description of the proceedings still in process. Finally, it pointed out that it maintain its intention to reach a friendly settlement with the petitioners38; and d) in the forth report to the Commission, of September 6, 2001, the State described the measures adopted by the Municipality of Quito in the expropriation proceedings, and informed that, at that moment, an appeal, an appeal for review of the facts as well as law and an objection, filed by the Municipality before the Ninth Trial Court were still pending resolution.39 42. Finally, the Court notes that in the answer to the complaint the State argued that there is a condemnation proceeding still pending final resolution and that “[…] the State cannot be held responsible of the delay in the resolution of [such] proceedings […] whose complexity is evidently clear as well as it was the delayed procedural acts of the interested party”. It further argued that there are other proceedings initiated by the 33 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 32, para. 88. Case of Garcia Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C N°. 168, para. 49; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 32, para. 25; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 21, para. 43. 34 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 32, para. 88; Case of Boyce et al., supra note 32, para. 25; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 21, para. 43. 35 Cf. Observations submitted by the State before the Commission (record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 3, Volume I, p. 298). 36 Cf. Official letter Nº 2894 addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on December 8, 1998 by Julio Pardo Vallejo, Permanent Representative of the State before the Organization of American States (record of appendixes to the complaint, V. I. p. 298 to 306). 37 Cf. Official letter Nº 4 -2-285/99 addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on September 19, 1999 by Patricio Vivanco Riofrío, Permanent Representative of the State before the Organization of American States (record of appendixes to the complaint, V. I. p. 356 to 358). 38 Cf. Official letter Nº 4 -2-17/00 addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on January 17, 2000 by Blasco Peñaherrera P, Permanent Representative of the State before the Organization of American States (record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 3, V. I. p. 528 to 532). 39 Cf. Official letter Nº 4 -2-213/01 addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on September 6, 2001 by Rafael Veintimilla Chiriboga, Deputy Representative of the State before the Organization of American States (record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 3, Volume I, p. 564 to 569).