B. The petition’s admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of local remedies 21. The Commission observes that the question it must decide is whether or not the judgment delivered by Peru’s Constitutional Court on October 21, 1997, on the amparoappeal filed by the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic was enforced. 22. The State never entered any objection regarding the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies. The Inter-American Court has held that “the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic 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.” 2 Hence, the InterAmerican Commission presumes that the State tacitly waived the requirement that local remedies be exhausted, since it did not file an objection either within established legal time periods or at the first opportunity it had in the proceeding to lodge its objection, which was its response to the petition that initiated the case. b. Time period for presentation 23. In the petition under study, the Commission has established that the Peruvian State waived its right to argue that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. However, the Convention’s requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted is independent of the requirement that the petition be lodged within six months following the judgment exhausting domestic remedies. The Commission must therefore decide whether this petition was submitted within a reasonable time. By virtue of the finding that the State tacitly waived the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement, no specific date can be identified from which to calculate the six month period. The absence of an identifiable date does not relieve the Petitioner of the requirement to file in a timely manner. In this sense, the Commission, taking into account the particular circumstances of the present case, considers that the present petition was presented within a reasonable time. 24. Based on the foregoing, the requirement as to the deadline for lodging a petition, set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, does not apply in the instant case. c. Duplication of proceeding and res judicata 25. It is the Commission’s understanding that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and is not substantially the same as a petition already examined by either the Commission or some other international organization. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) are also satisfied. d. Characterization of the facts 26. The Commission considers that the petition lodged by the petitioners states facts that if true could constitute a violation of rights protected under the Convention since, as established above, the question put to the Commission is whether the failure to enforce the judgment of Peru’s Constitutional Court implies the Peruvian State’s violation of Articles 25, 8, 21 and 1(1) of the American Convention. 2 IACtHR, Velázquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No. 1, para. 88; Fairén Garbi and Solis Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No..2, para. 87. 4