denied because it was found that the sentences were in accord with current law in Argentina. 72. As the Commission has stated previously, in order to fulfill the requirement of prior exhaustion, the petitioners must exhaust all suitable remedies—that is all remedies available and effective to remediate the reported complaint. In this case, the petitioners filed motions for cassation against the judicial decisions that condemned them to life in prison, and when these were denied, they filed special appeals (with the exception of young Roldán Cajal). The Commission does not necessarily require exhaustion of such appeals, because they are deemed to be special and discretionary. In this case, considering that the State was fully aware of the complaints now before the Commission, both regarding the respective convictions and regarding the incompatibility of life imprisonment with the Constitution of Argentina and with the American Convention, the Commission considers the alleged victims to have exhausted the remedies available under domestic law. 73. Since the central claim submitted by the petitioners revolves around disagreement with the sentence of life imprisonment, the remedies of cassation, special appeals, and even Constitutional appeals, are in the instant case, prima facie, the suitable remedies according to the legislation of Argentina. Therefore, the remedies pursued by the alleged victims do sufficiently fulfill the requirement on exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(1) of the American Convention. 74. In addition, the State has not alleged a lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, which allows us to assume a tacit relinquishment of the right to raise such an objection. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has declared that “in order for an objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be timely, it must be raised in the early stages of the proceedings; failure to do so allows one to assume a tacit relinquishment by the State in question of such an objection.”13 According to the background information provided, the Commission concludes that this requirement has been met. 75. In light of the foregoing analysis, the Commission concludes that César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, and Ricardo David Videla Fernández have pursued the regular and special remedies available within the legal system of the State, and that therefore, the State was fully aware of the claims that gave rise to this petition. 2. Deadline for lodging a petition 76. According to Article 46(1) of the Convention, in order for a petition to be admitted, 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. This six-month rule ensures the juridical certainty and stability of a decision once it is adopted. 13 See I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Para. 8; I/A Court H.R., Fairén Garbi and Solis Corrales Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, Nº 2, Para. 87; I/A Court H.R., Gangaram Panday Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C, Nº 12, Para. 38; and I/A Court H.R. Loayza Tamayo Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C, Nº 25, Para. 40.