Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition denounces violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of local remedies 28. The State reported that investigations were underway in Colombia to clarify the facts denounced in the present petition. For their part, the petitioners allege that the exception to the rule set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, requiring exhaustion of local remedies, should apply to this petition by reason of the unwarranted delay in rendering final judgment, provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention. 29. The Commission notes that the deaths of Noel Emiro Omeara Carrascal and his son Guillermo Omeara Miraval are still under investigation, even though they were killed more than seven years ago. The Commission also notes that the State did not provide any information concerning investigations into the assault on Mr. Héctor Alvarez Sánchez; the Commission therefore assumes that said investigation, too, is unresolved. 30. As the Inter-American Court has held, the State is the party that has to invoke the rule requiring failure to exhaust local remedies and may, therefore, waive it either expressly or by implication.7 The Court has also held that in order to be timely, the objection that domestic remedies have not been exhausted should be raised during the first stages of the proceeding or, to the contrary, it will be presumed that the interested State has waived its use tacitly.8 In this regard, the Court has also held that merely reporting information on the progress of the proceedings before the domestic courts and the State’s willingness to comply with the judgments they deliver, is not the same as filing an express objection claiming a failure to exhaust local remedies; failure to do so expressly must therefore be regarded as a tacit waiver of its right.9 7 IACtHR, Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C No. 24, par. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, par. 40. 8 IACtHR, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 1, 2000, paragraphs 53 and 54. 9 Ibid., paragraph 55.