2 4. Additionally, this nature has been acknowledged not only by the InterAmerican System but by other regional systems as well, for example the European Human Rights Protection System. In this regard, the European Human Rights Court has expressed that the protection established in the European Human Rights Convention is subsidiary to the national protection system. 3 The European Convention allows each State Party, first, the task of guaranteeing the rights and freedoms enshrined. The institution created by it, makes its own contribution to that task, but is involved only through adversarial proceedings and when all domestic remedies have been exhausted (Art. 26)” 4 . From the aforementioned, it can be concluded that the European Court acknowledges in a clear and precise manner the importance of offering the State the possibility to repair the violations of human rights through the exhaustion of all its domestic remedies, intimately relating this with the objective itself of the international systems, namely offering protection to those rights when the States have not done so. 5. Anyway, I start my opinion with these reflections, both well known and accepted, regarding the complementary nature of the Court, because it is precisely this principle what motivates me to conclude that the preliminary objection filed by the State of Venezuela should have been accepted in the present case. 6. The State of Venezuela filed a preliminary objection, stating that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo “did not file the Appeal for Revision before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.” However, the majority has decided that, since “the […] preliminary objection was not filed in a timely manner […] the State [missed] its chance to use this means of defense before this Tribunal.” (paras. 20 and 21 of the Judgment) This implies that no progress is made on the revision regarding the effectiveness of the remedy to confront the problems that would derive from the decision adopted by the Political-Administrative Chamber. In this regard, it is important to point out that in the case file there are copies of several judgments of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in which the latter accepted the appeal for revision, as evidence of the possibility to turn to this remedy and obtain favorable results. 7. The present decision is respectful of the reiterated jurisprudence of the Court, which has established, first of all, that the objection of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies is a rule in which the possibility to invoke it can be waived expressly or tacitly by the State that has the right to do so and, second, that the way to waive this right corresponding to the State is by not filing the objection in a “timely” manner.5 8. However, I disagree with this jurisprudence of the Court and, therefore, with the decision made in the present case. First of all, as previously stated, the subsidiary nature of the Court is one of the grounds for its jurisdiction. The exhaustion of domestic remedies is established in the American Convention as a 3 ECHR, Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium, Judgment of 23 July 1968, para. 10; ECHR, Case of Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, para. 51, and ECHR, Case of Sisojeva and others v. Latvia, Judgement of 15 January 2007. 4 5 ECHR, Handyside v. United Kingdom. Judgment (Merits) of 7 December 1976, para. 48. Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgmentof June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88.