11 Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 30). 41. In accordance with the aforementioned criteria, the Court further considers that the Government had the obligation to invoke explicitly and in a timely manner the rule of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies if it wished to challenge appropriately the admissibility of the complaint before the Inter-American Commission, presented on November 16, 1990, on the disappearance of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez. 42. The briefs that the Government presented to the Commission during the processing of the case showed inter alia the evolution of the habeas corpus proceedings and the criminal aspect of Mr. Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez's disappearance. However, the Government did not clearly state its objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies at an early stage of the proceedings before the Commission. It was only expressly invoked in the Task Force Report presented to the Commission by the Government on January 3, 1995, in answer to Report 19/94 approved by the Commission itself on September 26, 1994, which served to support the application before this Court. 43. It may be concluded from the foregoing that, since the Government extemporaneously claimed the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies required by Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention to preclude admission of the complaint on behalf of Mr. Ernesto Rafael CastilloPáez, it is understood to have tacitly waived the requirement. 44. At the public hearings on preliminary objections held by this Court on September 23, 1995, in reply to a question from Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, the Peruvian Agent clearly stated that only at a later stage in the case before the Commission had the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies been explicitly raised. Indeed, in the previous briefs (including the brief of October 3, 1991) submitted to the Commission, reference had been made solely to the evolution of the aforementioned proceedings, which in the view of this Court is insufficient to consider the objection to have been presented. The reason, as explained, is that the Government may expressly, or by implication, waive the requirement. Since it had done so by implication, the Commission could not later properly take the objection into consideration. 45. For the reasons stated above, the first of the objections brought must be dismissed. The second objection must also be rejected for the same reasons, since they were both founded on the same premise, as stated above (see supra 39). VII 46. Now, therefore, THE COURT,