7 Court would still address the issues of mandatory death sentencing and judicial hanging in this case because of the important public interest involved and the fundamental human right at stake, namely, the right to life. 23. For all of the above reasons, the Court considers that the issues of mandatory death sentencing and judicial hangings are not moot. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Non-Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 24. In its answer to the application the State objected to the admissibility of the case because domestic remedies have allegedly not been exhausted, as required by Articles 46(1)(a) and 47(a) of the American Convention and Articles 27 and 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission. In particular, the State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted as to the alleged conditions of detention, the alleged cruelty of hanging as a form of execution, and the alleged cruelty involved in reading warrants of execution to the alleged victims while their appeals were pending. 25. The Court has already developed clear guidelines for the analysis of an objection regarding an alleged failure of exhaustion of domestic remedies.18 Firstly, the objection has been understood by the Court to be a defense available to States, and, as such, that it may be expressly or tacitly waived. Secondly, in order for the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies to be timely, it must be pled in the State’s first submission before the Commission; otherwise, it is presumed that the State has tacitly waived this argument. Thirdly, the Court has asserted that a State lodging this objection must specify the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and demonstrate that these remedies are applicable and effective. 26. The Court observes that, in their petition before the Commission, the representatives raised all three issues (conditions of detention, hanging, and reading of warrants of execution) in relation to all four victims. Nevertheless, the State did not raise any argument in its first submission before the Commission regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies with respect to two of the four alleged victims, namely, Messrs. Boyce and Joseph. Thus, the State has implicitly waived its right to resort to such a defense with regards to these two alleged victims. 27. However, the State indicated in its first submission during the proceedings before the Commission that “there has not been an exhaustion of local remedies in respect of Michael Huggins and Frederick Atkins as there has been no order transmitted from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council relating to their domestic appeals”. In its final written arguments before the Court, the State admitted that “the above statement was incorrect since the order it refers to had already been transmitted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to another branch of the Government [and therefore] the domestic process[es related to the appeals of Mr. Huggins and Mr. Atkins] had already been completed”. Nevertheless, with regard to their alleged conditions of detention, cruelty of hanging as a form of execution, and the reading of the warrants of execution, the State still maintained that it raised the issue of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies at the appropriate procedural opportunity. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 51, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 64.