12 given in the Report on the Merits. In light of all this, the Commission interpreted the State's silence as a tacit waiver of the right to plead such a requirement; the Commission was thus exempted from pursuing other considerations on compliance and was able to declare the case admissible. 53. The Court notes that, in keeping with the standards described above, during the admissibility procedure with the Commission, when the State did not expressly outline the applicable, effective remedies that should have been exhausted, it implicitly waived a line of defense that the American Convention holds out in its favor and tacitly admitted that such remedies did not exist or that they had been exhausted in a timely fashion.9 Therefore, the State was unable to claim non-exhaustion of the special motion and extraordinary remedy in the procedure before the Court. 54. For these reasons, considering the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and taking into account the jurisprudence of the Court,10 the second preliminary objection pled by the State is dismissed. VI EVIDENCE 55. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure and the jurisprudence of the Court on taking and evaluating evidence,11 the Court will proceed to examine and assess testimony rendered before it, as well as documentary evidence filed by the Commission, the representatives and the State at various stages of this proceeding or as evidence to facilitate resolution of the case submitted at the behest of the President.12 A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 56. The representatives submitted a witness statement and an expert opinion, and the State, two witness statements; all were signed and officially notarized, in response to an 9 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 64; Case of Ximenes Lopes. Preliminary Objection, supra note 7, para. 5; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 8, para. 49. 10 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 9, para. 65; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 100 and 101; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 7, para. 126; Case of Ximenes Lopes. Preliminary Objection, supra note 7, para. 9; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 8, para. 50; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 2, para. 64 and 65; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 91; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 51; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 142; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 52; Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 83; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 56 and 58; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 38 and 39; Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 56 and 57; Case of Loayza Tamayo. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C No. 25, para. 43 and 45; and Case of Castillo Páez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, para. 43 and 45. Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. supra note 9, para. 67; Case of Servellón García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 33; and Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 42. 11 12 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 9, para. 68; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 11, para. 34; and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 11, para. 43.