40. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis because the facts alleged occurred in May 1992, when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in the American Convention was already binding upon the Peruvian State. C Admissibility requirements of the petition 1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies 41. Under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, for the Commission to be able to admit a petition, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 42. The Commission observes that, according to the information available in the case file, in the wake of events at the “Castro Castro” prison, the attorneys and families of the inmates housed at that facility for the crime of terrorism filed a petition of habeas corpus with the Lima examining magistrate, against the prison warden and other authorities because of the restrictions placed on visits by the inmates’ attorneys and family members. The judge ordered a summary inquiry to investigate the conduct of the State agents in the events that are the subject of the petition. However, on July 21, 1992, the judge declared the petition inadmissible. 43. The State, for its part, has not filed any objection asserting the rule requiring exhaustion of local remedies. The Inter-American Court has pointed out that “the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed.”5 44. For these reasons, the Commission concludes that the requirement concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies has been satisfied. 2 Deadline for filing the petition 45. Article 46 of the Convention states that for the Commission to admit a petition or communication presented in accordance with articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it must be “lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment.” 46. The Commission notes that the petition filed in case 11.015 was lodged on an emergency basis, before the domestic remedies had been exhausted. That, however, does not preclude its admissibility at the current stage of the case, since the requirements for a petition’s admissibility must be examined, as a rule, as of the time the Commission rules on the question of admissibility.6 The Commission further observes that the State did not make any argument regarding the six-month time period for filing petitions. The requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is, therefore, met. 3 Duplication of proceedings 47. It is the Commission’s understanding that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement and is not substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, and notwithstanding paragraph 46 above, the requirements stipulated in articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) are met. 4 Characterization of the facts 5 IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 21, 1987, Series C, No. 1, par. 88; Fairén Garbi and Solis Corrales case, Preliminary Objections, judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No. 2, par. 87; Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Objections, judgment of December 4, 1991, Series C, No. 12, par. 38; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C, No. 25, par. 40. 6 IACHR, Report 52/00, Dismissed Congressional Employees, Cases 11.830 and 12.038, (Peru), par. 19. 6