11 subsequently in the failure to investigate and prosecute most of the possible perpetrators. This is consistent with the exception outlined in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention, according to which the requirement to exhaust is subordinate to the existence of effective domestic remedies, which is not seen in this case. Arguments of the representatives 49. The representatives claim that the petition was lodged when all available domestic remedies for investigating the facts had been exhausted, as on June 19, 1997, the presiding judge set aside the police investigation at the request of the Office of the Public Prosecutor under the argument that there was insufficient evidence for a criminal indictment. At the time, this discontinuance of the investigation represented exhaustion of domestic remedies for ascertaining the circumstances under which the murder was committed, and six months later, on December 11, 1997, the representatives therefore lodged a petition against the State with the Commission. Conclusions of the Court 50. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention states that, in order for a petition or communication lodged with the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention to be judged admissible, the remedies under domestic law need to have been pursued and exhausted.7 51. The Court has already developed clear requirements for lodging the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The generally recognized principles of international law, to which the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies refers, in the first place recognize that the respondent State may waive the application of this rule, whether expressly or tacitly. In the second place, the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in order to be timely, must be pled during the stage of admissibility of the procedure with the Commission, that is, prior to consideration of the merits; otherwise, it is presumed that the State has tacitly waived this argument. In the third place, the Court has asserted that the failure to exhaust remedies is strictly a matter of admissibility, and that a State lodging this objection must specify the domestic remedies that remain to be exhausted and demonstrate that these remedies are applicable and effective.8 52. On June 29, 2000, the State, in its only comment prior to publication of the Admissibility Report by the Inter-American Commission, held that “the process seeking to resolve the death of the attorney Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho [was] at the stage of pronúncia, meaning that the presiding judge finds convincing evidence that a crime was committed, as well as evidence of who committed it” (supra para. 8). In other words, in its only response to the petition, the State did not lodge the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, as demonstrated by the Commission in its report, because its other three responses sought to demonstrate that it had complied with the recommendations 7 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 122; Case of Ximenes Lopes. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 4; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 48. 8 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 49; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 2, para. 61; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 135.