9 to other effective remedies before the competent authority, including the possibility of appealing to the Ministry of the Interior [“Ministerio Público”] to secure its approval of the remedy to protect the fundamental rights enshrined in the American Convention and the 1979 Political Constitution in force at the time. Under Article 250 of the Constitution, the Ministry of the Interior is an autonomous State organ with official responsibility to promote, in its own right or acting upon a petition of one of the parties, the protective remedy to defend the legitimacy of civic rights and public interests protected by the law. b. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo's right to due process of law was respected under Article 25 of the Convention, inasmuch as she had the time and appropriate means to prepare her defense, since she made her declaration before the military jurisdiction in the presence of her defense attorney and the Special Military Prosecutor. Moreover, the representative of the Ministry of the Interior was present at the police action that led to her arrest. c. Although the Government did not indeed file the objection of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies until the presentation of its Report of November 23, 1994, it had repeatedly declared before the Commission that the requirement of admissibility had not been fulfilled and that, in any event, there was nothing to prevent Peru from filing that objection with this Court, pursuant to Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure. d. Furthermore, it had sent to the Commission on three occasions the documentation relating to Mrs. Loayza-Tamayo's arrest, trial on the charge of treason in the military court and acquittal by the Supreme Court of Military Justice of August 11, 1993, and the transfer of the case to the regular courts, which had then tried Mrs. Loayza-Tamayo for the crime of terrorism, a case that had not been concluded. The Government had dispatched this documentation to the Commission with its briefs of August 23 and September 30, 1993, as well as its brief of July 13, 1994. 38. The Inter-American Commission, in its brief of comments on the Government's preliminary objections, maintains that: a. Peru expressly admits that it did not formally interpose the objection of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies in a timely manner and that this admission constitutes in itself sufficient reason for the Court to declare the objection inadmissible. b. The Government's assertion that it repeatedly told the Commission that the domestic remedies had not been exhausted is not accurate, since it only did so at the time it presented its report prepared by the Government Task Force. Although at the hearing held by the Commission on September 16, 1994, the Government's representative did refer to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies because the lawsuit against María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was still being tried in the regular courts, he did so in a very general manner and did not supply any proof in support of his statement, having at no time indicated the remedy to be exhausted or given proof of its effectiveness. c. The Government's argument that, although the remedy of habeas corpus was suspended in regard to the crimes of treason and terrorism under Article 6 of Decree Law 25.659, María Elena Loayza-Tamayo had access to other effective remedies before the competent authority for protection of her rights, including the Ministry of the Interior, is unacceptable. The Commission maintains that no reference is made in any