23. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae, because the petition claims violations of human rights protected under the American Convention. ii. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 24. Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes as a requirement for the admissibility of a complaint the prior exhaustion of remedies available in the State’s domestic jurisdiction. The petitioner alleges that the domestic remedies were exhausted through the decision of the judicial closure body (Supreme Court of Justice) dated October 14, 2004. For its part, the State did not submit preliminary objections regarding a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Consequently, the Commission feels that the Venezuelan State did not invoke a failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the initial phases of the proceeding. 25. The Inter-American Court has established on numerous occasions 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.” 12 26.Therefore, the Commission feels that the Venezuelan State waived the objection asserting non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in that it did not submit it at the first procedural opportunity it had, i.e., in its response to the petition that started the procedure. iii. Timeliness of the petition 27. In the petition under consideration, the IACHR has concluded that the State of Venezuela tacitly waived its right to file an objection asserting non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, for which reason Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention does not apply. Nonetheless, the provisions of the Convention that require prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and the submission of the petition within a period of six months from the date of the final decision in the domestic jurisdiction are independent. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission must determine whether the petition in question was submitted within a reasonable period of time. In this respect, the IACHR notes that the final decision of the judicial closure body (Supreme Court of Justice) was rendered on October 14, 2004. The petition was filed on April 13, 2005, for which reason the Commission considers that it was submitted in a reasonable period of time. iv. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 28. The file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in any other proceeding in the international arena, nor does it reproduce a petition already examined by this body or another international body. Therefore, it is appropriate to rule that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. v. Characterization of the alleged facts 29. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the petition presents facts that could be characterized as a violation, as stipulated by Article 47(b) of the American Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as indicated in Article 47(c). 12 The Inter-American Court has stated: [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.” See: Velásquez Rodríguez case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 1, para. 88; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 2, para. 87; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 3, para. 90; Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 4, 1991, Series C No. 12, para. 38; Neira Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991, Series C No. 13, para. 30; Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996, Series C No. 24, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, para. 40. 6