33. Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes as a requirement for admissibility for a complaint the prior exhaustion of remedies available within the domestic jurisdiction of the State. 34. The State made no preliminary objections to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission finds that, in this petition, the Venezuelan State did not invoke the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the initial stages of the proceedings. 35. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly asserted that “the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings, lest a waiver of the requirement by the State concerned be presumed.” 11 36. Therefore, the Commission finds that the Venezuelan State forfeited any objection to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, since it did not raise such an objection at the earliest opportunity in the process, namely in its response to the petition that gave rise to the proceedings. 2. Deadline for Lodging a Petition with the Commission 37. In the petition under review, the IACHR established the tacit forfeiture by the Venezuelan State of its right to object to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, wherefore Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention applies. However, the Convention’s requirements that domestic remedies be exhausted and that the petition be filed within six months of issue of the judgment exhausting domestic remedies are separate. The Commission finds that compliance with that deadline is not applicable either, because the petition was presented within a reasonable time frame, as indicated in Article 32(2) of its Rules of Procedure for cases in which no final judgment was handed down before the petition was filed. 12 38. Furthermore, the rule provided in 46(1)(b) “does not apply when it has been impossible to exhaust internal remedies due to a lack of due process, denial of access to remedies, or unwarranted delay in issuing a final decision [...]” 13In that connection, the Commission takes account of the procedural development of the case in the domestic jurisdiction and concludes that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time limit. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 39. There is no evidence from the case that the petition is pending in other international proceedings, or that it has already been examined by this or another international agency. Therefore, the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention must be considered satisfied. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 40. Article 47(b) of the Convention establishes that the Commission will declare inadmissible any petition or communication submitted that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” 11 See, for example, Inter.-American Court for Human Rights, Case de la Comunidad Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingi, Preliminary Exceptions, Sentence of February 1, 2000, par. 53. 12 IACHR, Report 14/04, Admissibility, Peru, Case 11.568, Luis Antonio Galindo Cárdenas, February 27, 2004, para. 47. 13 IACHR, Report 05/02, Argentina, Case 12.080, Sergio Schiavini and María Teresa de Schiavini, February 27, 2002, para. 55. 7