9 admitted the appeal on November 27 of that year and ordered that a certified copy of all the events be sent to the presiding Provincial Prosecutor for the purpose of bringing a criminal case against the Director of the National Police Force and the Head of the Anti-Terrorism Bureau and identifying those responsible. The Government further contends that in connection with that judgment of the appeal, a criminal process was initiated against those officers in the Fourteenth Criminal Court of Lima for abuse of authority, and that the case was expanded to include members of the police force for the use of violence and refusal to obey orders. The writ of habeas corpus was later granted by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic for serious irregularities committed in the court of first instance. In view of the foregoing, the Government declares that the Commission, in admitting the complaint and formulating recommendations on it, infringed the provisions of the Convention and of its own Regulations concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the action of habeas corpus which was in full process before the First Criminal Chamber of the Lima Court of Appeals, to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez and identify those responsible for his alleged detention by members of the police force had not ended. Peru concludes that Mr. Castillo-Castillo should have filed a petition of cassation with the former Tribunal of Constitutional Guarantees which, in accordance with the constitutional provisions in force at that time, had jurisdiction to take up, on appeal, rulings that denied petitions of habeas corpus. b. The second objection brought by Peru concerns the inadmissibility of the Commission's application to the Court, on the grounds that this Court may not admit an application that originated in a case irregularly processed by the Inter-American Commission. It claims not only that the petitioner turned to the Commission without exhausting the domestic remedies, but that the complaint was lodged even though the subject had been awarded national judgments that protected his right, and a criminal case that originated with the appeal of habeas corpus presented on his behalf was still in process. The Commission did not duly verify, as it is called upon to do under Article 47(1) of its Regulations, whether the motives for the petition still existed, once it had received Peru's answer to Commission Report 19/94 of September 26, 1994, transmitted through a diplomatic note from the office of that country's Permanent Representative to the OAS. 38. In the Commission's comments on the brief of preliminary objections, it requests that those objections be rejected for the following reasons: a. That Peru did not file the objection alleging non-exhaustion of domestic remedies at the proper time; that is to say that when the Commission instituted its proceedings four years had elapsed between the filing of the complaint and the date on which the Government first raised that objection in the Task Force Report which was transmitted to the Commission on January 3, 1995, in response to the considerations and recommendations contained in Report 19/94. The Commission invokes the criterion laid down by this Tribunal in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, judgment of June 26, 1987, whereby the objection of non-exhaustion of internal 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.