15.On the first available occasion in these proceedings –that is, in its reply of February 2, 2000, to the Commission’s transmission of the petition– the State made no reference to domestic remedies still pending in Mexico. Its second opportunity was in its note of July 21, 2000, replying to the petitioners’ comments; again, on this second occasion, the State failed to invoke the exception set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. On July 21, 2001, in its third communication with the IACHR, the State said that “as a result of the hearing before the Honorable Commission on October 11, 2000, it was made evident that there were remedies provided by domestic law that had not been exhausted in this case.” 16.The State thus claims that domestic remedies have at all times been available to the petitioners. It maintains that the domestic remedies applicable to the torture allegations reported to the IACHR were not exhausted, in that Mr. Martín del Campo Dodd’s defense counsel did not lodge an amparo suit, which would have been an ideal and effective remedy for questioning the Public Prosecution Service’s decision to refrain from pursuing criminal action in connection with those claims. It also maintains that a decision is still pending in the review remedy lodged against the amparo suit filed to revoke the dismissal of recognition of innocence. The Mexican State “reserves the right to offer additional considerations on the admissibility and merits of the petition once a final ruling has been given in the aforesaid amparo proceedings.” 5 17.The petitioners claim that Mexican domestic jurisdiction was exhausted with the decision handed down on April 29, 1999, by the Superior Court of Justice of the Federal District, dismissing the recognition of innocence of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. As regards the dismissed amparo suit and the appeal filed against that decision, the petitioners have consistently maintained that they continued to take juridical actions, in the understanding that, in accordance with the applicable jurisprudence of the inter-American system, those actions were not remedies that had to be exhausted. In their submission of October 1, 2001, the petitioners informed the IACHR that the Fourth Collegiate Criminal Court of the First Circuit did, on September 3, 2001, hand down a ruling dismissing the amparo suit filed by Mr. Martín del Campo’s representatives. 6 18.The Inter-American Commission notes that the Mexican State did not invoke the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the earliest stages of proceedings. On the contrary: it only did so in its third communication with the IACHR, after a hearing had been held and more than one year after its first submission in connection with this matter. 19.The Inter-American Court has on repeated occasions ruled that objections alleging a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, in order to be considered timely, must be raised in the early stages of proceedings; otherwise, the State is assumed to have tacitly waived that right. 7The Inter-American Commission therefore holds that in this case, the Mexican State waived its right to argue that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, in that it failed to do so within the established legal deadlines and, in addition, failed to do so at the first available opportunity in the proceedings –that is, in its reply to the petition with which the proceedings began. b. Timeliness of the Petition 20.In the instant case, the IACHR has established that the Mexican State tacitly waived its right to argue that domestic remedies were not exhausted, and so the requirement contained 5State’s submission, April 21, 2001, p. 1. 6The petitioners state that the ruling of September 3, 2001, “concludes all the domestic instances for reviewing the case.” They add: Although the State maintained that there were still domestic remedies to be exhausted –a claim that was not accepted by the petitioners– the Collegiate Court’s judgment upholding the dismissal of the amparo suit must force the Commission to conclude that all domestic remedies were exhausted and, consequently, to proceed with the corresponding report on admissibility. It should be noted that although the amparo suit and the corresponding appeal were filed, none of the courts embarked on an analysis of the merits of the case because of the inadmissibility of the innocence remedy; this serves to underscore the ineffectiveness of the remedies provided by domestic law. Petitioners’ submission, October 1, 2001, p. 1. 7For example, see: Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, Nicaragua, Judgment on the Preliminary Objections, February 1, 2000, paragraph 53. In that same judgment, the Inter-American Court ruled that “in order to validly oppose the admissibility of the petition… the State should have expressly andin a timely mannerinvoked the rule that domestic remedies should be exhausted” (emphasis per original);ibid., paragraph 54. 4