17 indicated that “[the petitioners] never reported the alleged threats to the competent authorities. On the contrary, […] they always expressed their complete confidence in the acts of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic [of El Salvador], which they now contradict in their petition, given that they state that they are not confident in the investigation undertaken by the Office of the Attorney General.” According to the State, its “legal system allows for a private prosecutor, which the alleged victims could have appointed, but never did.” 51. On the other hand, in its Report on Admissibility No. 27/99, the Commission indicated that the State “[…] had not raised objection with respect to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, nor had it indicated exactly which remedies were still available to the petitioner.” Consequently, the Commission concluded that “the State [had] tacitly desisted in its interposition [of this objection] and deems [Article 46(1)(a)] of the Convention satisfied.” 52. The Court observes that, given the criteria identified above, the State implicitly renounced a means of defense which the American Convention27 establishes in its favor, given that it did not expressly indicate during the admissibility proceedings before the Commission which appropriate and effective remedies remained to be exhausted. Therefore, the State was impeded from alleging the failure to exhaust domestic remedies before this Court. 53. For the abovementioned reasons, the Court dismisses the second preliminary objection raised by the State and will analyze in the merits the alleged violations of Article 5 of the Convention. * * * THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Objection based on the Informality of the Application” 54. Upon raising this preliminary objection, the State alleged that the InterAmerican Commission submitted the application to the Court “ignoring the criteria established in [Article 33] of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court”, which require the identification of the lay and expert witnesses and object of their testimony.28 This argument was based on the fact that the Commission offered witness number six and requested that he or she remain anonymous until the 27 Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention establishes that a petition or communication submitted to the Inter-American Convention in conformity with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention will only be deemed admissible when the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction have been utilized and exhausted, in accordance with the principles of international law generally recognized. At the same time, according to Article 47(a) of the Convention, the Commission will declare inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 when one of the requirements of Article 46 is absent. 28 Article 33, in relevant part, establishes that : “The brief containing the application shall indicate: 1. the claims (including those relating to reparations and costs); the parties to the case; a statement of the facts; the orders on the opening of the proceeding and the admissibility of the petition by the Commission; the supporting evidence, indicating the facts on which it will bear; the particulars of the witnesses and expert witnesses and the subject of their statements; the legal arguments, and the pertinent conclusions. In addition, the Commission shall include the name and address of the original petitioner, and also the name and address of the alleged victims, their next of kin or their duly accredited representatives, when this is possible. […]