12 waived its use tacitly (Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections. Ibid, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections. Ibid, para. 40; Castillo Petruzzi Case, Preliminary Objections Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 56). Thirdly, the State that alleges non-exhaustion must indicate which domestic remedies should be exhausted and provide evidence of their effectiveness (Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections. Ibid, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections. Ibid, para. 40; Cantoral Benavides Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31; Durand and Ugarte Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33). 54. According to the criteria mentioned previously, the Court considers that, in order to validly oppose the admissibility of the petition submitted to the InterAmerican Commission on October 2, 1995, the State should have expressly and in a timely manner invoked the rule that domestic remedies should be exhausted. 55. Although it is true that the briefs presented by Nicaragua to the Commission while the petition was being processed indicated, among other information, the progress of the proceedings before the domestic courts and also the State’s willingness to comply with the judgments they delivered, it is evident that the State did not clearly file the objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted during the first stages of the proceeding before the Commission. There is no record in the file that this objection had been invoked expressly until the end of 1997, specifically, in a note from the State of December 4, 1997, which was received by the Commission the following day. 56. From the foregoing, it is concluded that the State tacitly waived filing the objection that domestic remedies had not been exhausted because it did not allege this in a timely manner before the Commission. 57. The Court, in turn, observes that, in its brief of May 6, 1998, replying to the Inter-American Commission’s Report No. 27/98, Nicaragua explained how it was “comply[ing] with the recommendations [of the Commission]” and once again did not allege the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, so that it is impeded from filing this objection now (estoppel). 58. For the above reasons, the Court dismisses the objection filed by Nicaragua. 59. Since the objection filed by the State has been dismissed because it was presented after the statutory time limit had passed, the Court does not consider it necessary to rule on the issue of the effectiveness of the domestic remedies mentioned in the objection. VII 60. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES unanimously,