8 Preliminary Objections, supra 27, para.42; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 25, 1996. Series C No. 23, para. 38). 35. The Court observes that the brief in which the Government filed its preliminary objections was presented a few days after expiration of the period of thirty days set by Article 31(1) of its Rules of Procedure, but that this delay cannot be considered excessive within the limits of timeliness and reasonableness considered by this Tribunal as necessary for excusing a delay in meeting a deadline (see supra 34, Paniagua Morales et al. Case, paras. 37 and 39). Further, that this very Court has been flexible about the periods established in the Convention and in its Rules of Procedure, including that indicated in Article 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and has often granted extensions requested by the parties when they have shown reasonable cause. 36. In the instant case, the Court considers that, even though the Government did not expressly request an extension, this omission was possibly due to its mistaken computation of the period, excluding the non-working days in accordance with its procedural rules. For the reasons adduced, the review of the preliminary objections presented by Peru should proceed. V 37. The Government filed preliminary objections on two grounds: the failure to exhaust the remedies of domestic law and the inadmissibility of the application. The Government's position on these two points is summarized in a. and b. below. a. The former is based essentially on the charge that the complaint before the Inter-American Commission was filed in parallel with the procedures of domestic remedies, thereby contravening the provisions of Articles 46(1)(a) and (b) of the American Convention and Article 37(1) of the Regulations of the Commission. The Government also considers that there has been a contravention of Article 305 of the 1979 Constitution of Peru, in force at the time at which the complaint was lodged with the Commission, in particular the principle whereby only after domestic remedies have been exhausted may persons who consider that their constitutional rights have been violated have recourse to the international courts or organizations established under the treaties to which Peru is a signatory. According to the Government, the foregoing is all the more serious since, as shown in the text of the application, the Peruvian courts had already ruled in the plaintiff's favor at the time the petition was lodged with the Inter-American Commission. The Government also maintains that there was simultaneity in the presentation of the national and international remedies, recalling that on October 25, 1990 Mr. Cromwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo, father of Mr. Castillo-Páez, filed an appeal of habeas corpus against several officials with the Twenty-fourth Criminal Court of Lima under Judge Minaya Calle; once the appeal had been processed it culminated in the judgment of October 31, 1990 which upheld the appeal in favor of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez for arbitrary arrest and ordered his immediate release. Although he had obtained this favorable ruling, Mr. Castillo-Castillo had still appealed to the international authority, the complaint in question having been lodged with the Commission on November 16, 1990, before completion of the habeas corpus proceedings. The ruling of the Examining Magistrate was appealed before the Eighth Criminal Chamber, which