11 41. The Court further considers, in accordance with the aforementioned criteria, that the Government had the obligation to invoke, expressly 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 May 6, 1993, concerning María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's detention and trial. 42. The briefs that the Government presented to the Commission during the processing of the case did show inter alia the way in which the habeas corpus trials developed in the military and regular court systems. However, the Government did not clearly state its objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies during the early stages of the proceedings before the Commission, since it was only expressly invoked in the Task Force report presented to the Commission by the Government on December 7, 1994, in answer to Report 20/94 approved by the Commission 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 alleged the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies required by Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention to preclude admission of the complaint on behalf of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo, it is understood to have tacitly waived that right. 44. At the public hearing 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 and Advisor 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 submitted to the Commission, reference had been made solely to the development of the aforementioned proceedings. In its preliminary objection brief, Peru explicitly stated that it had not formally filed the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to the Commission. In the view of this Court, this is sufficient to consider the objection not to have been presented. Accordingly, since the Government waived by implication the right to file, the Commission could not later properly take the objection into consideration. 45. The preliminary objection should be dismissed for the reasons stated above. VII 46. Now, therefore, THE COURT,