D. Claims for pecuniary reparation made by the representative of the presumed victims D.1. Arguments of the Commission and pleadings of the parties 46. The State indicated that “none of the presumed victims (the young men sentenced and their next of kin) submitted pecuniary claims before the local justice system of the Argentine Republic,” and “neither did they, at any time before the international jurisdiction, cite grounds that would have prevented them from having access to the jurisdictional instance based on those claims.” It indicated that, based on the principle of good faith that should govern the interpretation and application of treaties, and in light of the reservation made by the State when ratifying the American Convention with regard to the limitation of the Court’s competence to review the compensation awarded by the local courts, the admissibility of the claim being originated before the inter-American system infringes that reservation. 47. The Commission observed that the State’s claim sought to extend the scope of the reservation in order to prevent the possibility of a victim of human rights violations requesting pecuniary reparations. This interpretation would run contrary to the object and purpose of the American Convention, especially the basic principle that all human rights violations generate the obligation to make reparation, pursuant to Article 63(1) of this instrument. It also indicated that the argument regarding a possible failure to exhaust domestic remedies is time-barred, as it was not presented at the proper moment before the Inter-American Commission. 48. The representative stated that neither the text of the American Convention nor the case law of the Court suggest that the victim is required to have filed pecuniary claims at the domestic level for the Court to be able to rule on pecuniary reparations in a particular case. The representative also found that the State’s argument was not admissible as a supposed objection based on failure to exhaust domestic remedies, because this is not the appropriate procedural moment to submit that argument. In addition, the representative indicated that the term “fair compensation” included in the State’s reservation to Article 21 of the Convention does not refer to any type of compensation in the abstract granted by any court but rather to compensation in the context of a restriction of the right to property. D.2. Considerations of the Court 49. The Court observes that during the proceedings before the Commission, the State did not argue the presumed failure to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to claims for compensation for the presumed victims in this case. In this regard, pursuant to this Court’s case law, the State’s argument is therefore time-barred. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State tacitly waived the right to submit this defense at the proper procedural moment. 17 Nevertheless, on ratifying the American Convention, the State made a reservation to Article 21. 18 However, in this case, the violation of the right to private property, recognized in Article 21 of the American Convention, was not alleged; nor was the 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012, para. 34. 18 The text of the reservation is as follows: “The Argentine Government establishes that questions relating to the Government's economic policy shall not be subject to review by an international Court. Neither shall anything the domestic courts may determine to be matters of 'public purpose’ and 'social interest,' nor anything they may understand by 'fair compensation’ be subject to review.” 19