36. Regarding the conventional filing period, the petitioner argues that he was notified of the Supreme Writ of Execution ordered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court on February 4, 2005, after his defense counsel requested copies, thus exhausting domestic remedies and filing the petition before the Inter-American Commission on February 14, 2005. Therefore, the petitioner holds that he is within the timeframe set by Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 37. The petitioner expressly notes that he is being held, as a convict, at the Miguel Castro Castro Maximum Security Penitentiary in Lima as of the date of this complaint’s submission to the IACHR. B. State 38. In this section, the Inter-American Commission notes that as of the date of the drafting of this report on the admissibility of petition No. 156-05, filed by Luis Williams Pollo Rivera, the Peruvian State has not submitted its response to the petition, which was conveyed to it on March 22, 2005. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis andratione materiae of the Commission 39. The petitioner is empowered under Article 44 of the American Convention to file petitions on behalf of the alleged victim, with respect to whom the Peruvian State has agreed to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Peru has been a party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, when it deposited the corresponding instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 40. In addition, the Commission has competence ratione loci to deal with the petition, since it claims violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring under the jurisdiction of the State. The Commission has competence ratione temporis to study the claim since the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the incidents described in the petition allegedly occurred. 41. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae to examine this case, since the petition describes possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 42. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention states that, for a complaint filed with the InterAmerican Commission in compliance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the remedies available under domestic law must have first been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is intended to facilitate the domestic authorities’ examination of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to resolve it before it is brought before an international venue. 43. As indicated by the principles of international law, reflected in the precedents set by the Inter-American Commission and Court, first, the respondent State may expressly or tacitly waive the right to invoke this rule.12 Secondly, the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings before the IACHR, Report No. 69/05, Petition 960/03, Admissibility, Iván Eladio Torres, Argentina, October 13, 2005, paragraph 42; I/A Court H. R., Ximenes Lopes Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 30, 2005, Series C No. 139, paragraph 5; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005, Series C No. 124, paragraph 49; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004, Series C No. 118, paragraph 135. 12 7