Commission, lest a tacit waiver of the State’s right to invoke the objection be presumed.13 Thirdly, in accordance with how the burden of proof applies, a State that alleges non-exhaustion must indicate which domestic remedies should be exhausted and provide evidence of their effectiveness.14 Therefore, if the State does not file timely claims regarding this exception, it is deemed to have waived its right to argue the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and consequently to satisfy the corresponding burden of proof. 44. The Commission believes that the petitioner exhausted domestic remedies. The criminal trial conducted by the National Terrorism Chamber, in which the alleged victim was convicted of crimes against law and order and terrorism in manner of collaboration, sentencing him to ten years in prison, concluded with the judgment of February 24, 2004. The IACHR further notes that the petitioner filed an appeal against this judgment but was upheld by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court in a decision handed down on December 22, 2004. The Commission consequently believes that the remedies offered by domestic jurisdiction were exhausted by the judgment given by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. 2. Filing period 45. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention states that for a petition to be admissible, it must have been filed within a period of six months following the date on which the complainant was notified of the final judgment at the national level. 46. From documents that the petitioner submitted as annexes, the Commission sees that the decision of the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court was adopted on December 22, 2004, and notice of it was given to the alleged victim on February 4, 2005. The Commission further notes that the complaint against the Peruvian State was sent to the IACHR on February 14, 2005, and received on February 28, 2005. It therefore concludes that the convention requirement for petitions to be filed within a maximum period of six months has been met. 3. Duplication of international procedures and res judicata 47. Article 46(1)(c) provides that the admissibility of petitions filed with the Commission is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention provides that the Commission shall not admit a petition that is “substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In the filing the petitioner expressly states that the incidents described in this petition have not been placed before any other international venue. Neither does anything in the case file indicates that the substance of the petition is pending a decision in any other international settlement proceeding or that it is substantially the same as any other petition already examined by this Commission or another international body. Consequently, the requirements set out in those articles have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 48. As the Commission has stated on other occasions, this stage in the proceedings is not for establishing whether or not a violation of the American Convention was committed. For the purposes of the admissibility report, the IACHR must simply decide whether the claims describe I/A Court H.R., The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 1, 2000, Series C No. 66, paragraph 53; Castillo Petruzzi Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 4, 1998, Series C No. 41, paragraph 56; and I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, paragraph 40. The Commission and the Court have said that “an early stage in the proceedings” is to be understood as meaning “the admissibility stage of proceedings before the Commission: that is, before any examination of the merits.” See, for example: IACHR, Report No. 71/05, Petition 543/04, Admissibility, Ever de Jesús Montero Mindiola, Colombia, October 13, 2005, quoting I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, paragraph 81. 14 IACHR, Report No. 32/05, Petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral et. al (persons living with HIV/AIDS), Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paragraphs 33-35; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, paragraph 53; Durand and Ugarte Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999, Series C No. 50, paragraph 33; and /A Court H. R., Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998, Series C No. 40, paragraph 31. 13 8