6 appeal for review has been made for the first time by the State before the InterAmerican Court, and it is therefore absolutely time-barred.” Additionally, it held that the State has not proven that the remedy argued as not exhausted is effective. 19. The representatives coincided with the Commission regarding the fact that the State’s objection would be time-barred. Additionally, they stated that the constitutional appeal for revision “cannot be considered […] an adequate and effective measure.” 20. The Court verifies that there is no controversy between the parties with regard to the fact that the present preliminary objection was not presented in a timely manner during the proceedings before the Commission. What the State wants is for the Tribunal to modify its constant jurisprudence, which has indicated that if the objection of lack of exhaustion of the domestic remedies is not filed in a timely manner, the possibility to do so is lost. As support for its position, the State offered three arguments: 1) that the tacit waiver is contrary to the American Convention, namely to its Preamble and Article 46; 2) that the exhaustion of the domestic remedies can be revised ex officio during any stage of the proceedings, and 3) that the non-presentation of this objection is a procedural error that can be corrected by the Tribunal. 21. Although it is true that the supervision exercised by the Inter-American Court is complementary,9 the Convention itself states that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies shall be interpreted pursuant with the generally acknowledged principles of International Law, among which we find the one that states that the use of this rule is a means of defense available to the State and therefore the procedural moment at which the exception was filed shall be verified. If it is not filed before the Commission in a timely manner, the State has missed its chance to use this measure of defense before this Tribunal. The aforementioned has been acknowledged not only by this Court10 but also by the European Court of Human Rights.11 22. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the interpretation it has made of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for more than 20 years is pursuant with the International Law. 23. Regarding the second and third arguments of the State (supra para. 20), the Tribunal reasserts that pursuant with its jurisprudence 12 and international 9 Cf. Preamble and Article 46 of the American Convention on Human Rights. See also The Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982. Series A No. 2, para. 31; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 53, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 64. 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 14, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 16. 11 Cf. ECHR. Case of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp Cases ("Vagrancy") v. Belgium, Judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, para. 55; Case of Foti et al. v. Italy, Judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56 párr. 44; and ECHR. Case of Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, judgment of 21 June 2007, para. 90 and 91. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 10, para. 88; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 37, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 42.