10 suspension of the contested administrative act when filing the application for amparo by the de facto procedure. 43. Lastly, it indicated that the Community failed to use all the existing remedies since it did not file an appeal against the logging concession on the grounds of unconstitutionality, and this was filed by third parties; this did not alter the fact that the Community had not exhausted the existing jurisdictional remedies under the national legal system. In this respect, Nicaragua indicated that the Community’s attitude had a negative influence on the provision of a legal remedy within a reasonable period. 44. Regarding its second argument, Nicaragua indicated that the Community incurred in a series of omissions and negligent actions since it did not address a request for the award of land titles to the competent authority, that is, the Nicaraguan Agrarian Reform Institute (INRA), but, instead, addressed a petition to an organ that did not have competence in the matter, the RAAN Regional Council. Nicaragua also declared that there was no formal petition from the Community for the award of land titles in the files of the National Demarcation Commission, the auxiliary administrative body created to streamline the demarcation process. 45. In its observations of September 25, 1998, the Inter-American Commission stated that the preliminary objection filed by the State should be declared inadmissible, since the State had acknowledged its responsibility when, in various communications of May 1998, it indicated the way in which it was complying with the Commission’s recommendations and when it subsequently requested a 12-month postponement in order to provide information on the measures that it had adopted to implement the said recommendations. 46. The Commission also indicated that the objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted should be declared inadmissible, because Nicaragua had waived this objection tacitly by not presenting it opportunely during the proceeding before the Commission, by assuming inconsistent attitudes with regard to its legal grounds and by failing to prove that there were effective and adequate domestic remedies that had not been exhausted. Furthermore, the Commission stated that the legal grounds used by the State were arguments related, in part, to the merits of the application and not specifically to the objection filed. Therefore, the Court should not declare the application inadmissible. 47. With regard to the measures designed to award title to their lands, the Commission indicated that representatives of the Community had visited INRA officials on several occasions to this end, but the officials had told them that the Institute was not competent to resolve a matter of communal lands. The Commission also stated that MARENA had informed the Community that there was a vacuum in the pertinent administrative and legal framework. Lastly, the Commission stated that when the Community had presented a request to the RAAN Regional Council, the latter had received it and recognized its competence in that respect. * * * 48. The Court will proceed to examine the timing of the State’s filing of the objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.