10 indicated that the only way to contest a legal precept of an electoral nature, was the unconstitutionality proceedings, and that the TRIFE could not hear this ‘even if the only purpose was to determine its possible non-application.’” * * * 30. The Court has developed clear rules for examining an objection based on an alleged failure to comply with the exhaustion of domestic remedies. First, the Court has interpreted the objection as a defense available to the State and, as such, the State may waive it, either expressly or tacitly. Second, this objection must be submitted opportunely so that the State may exercise its right to defense. Third, the Court has stated that the State that submits this objection must specify the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted and prove that those remedies are applicable and effective.6 31. The State first alleged the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies in its initial communication with the Commission on January 18, 2006, thus complying with the timely presentation of the preliminary objection. In this communication, the State indicated that Articles 8, 79 and 83 of the Law on the System of Mechanisms for Contesting Electoral Matters (hereinafter “Law on Contesting Electoral Matters”) provides for an action to protect the political and electoral rights of the citizen, which must be filed four days after learning about the authority’s act that an individual wishes to contest and which will be decided in a single proceeding by the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal. The State alleged that this remedy was the appropriate way, established in the Law on Contesting Electoral Matters, to protect political rights that had allegedly been violated, and that Mr. Castañeda Gutman did not exhaust it, but rather filed an inappropriate remedy under the Mexico legal system to contest an act by the authority relating to electoral matters. Consequently, the State complied with its obligation to specify the remedies that it understood had not yet been exhausted. 32. Based on the above, the Court considers that the State alleged the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the appropriate time and form. 33. When filing this preliminary objection before the Court, the State alleged, as it did before the Commission, that the said action for the protection of the political and electoral rights of the citizen was an available, appropriate and effective remedy. In this regard, the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim stated that this remedy was not effective; in consequence, first, it not have to be exhausted and, second, the absence, in Mexico, of a simple, prompt and effective remedy to contest the constitutionality of a law that allegedly affected Mr. Castañeda Gutman’s political rights constituted a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention. 34. The Inter-American Court has considered that, in the sphere of international human rights law, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has specific implications that are included in the Convention. Indeed, according to the Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), both in relation to the general obligation of these States to ensure the 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 43; and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 40.