12 subsequently adopt another position that contradicts the former one (estoppel principle). Pleadings of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin 46. The representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin argued that: a) the Commission has the authority to decide on exhaustion of domestic remedies and to establish admissibility, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Once said procedure has been conducted, the principle of procedural preclusion applies, and if a case is found admissible “this decision is ‘definitive’ and ‘indivisible’;” b) the State contradicts itself in its arguments regarding the preliminary objection, since on the one hand it asserted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, because there was a pending decision of the courts in the criminal proceeding against Mr. Tibi, and in the substantive arguments in that same brief it pointed out that the criminal proceeding against Mr. Tibi ended on January 21, 1998, within a reasonable time; c) in regards to the criminal proceeding pending and the discontinuance, the legal provisions that regulate it do not have the effect that the State wishes to assign to them. Suspension of the proceeding does not impede resorting to international venue. There was no ordinary or extraordinary appeal against the judgment that upheld the provisional discontinuance; d) Daniel Tibi filed two “amparo de libertad” or judicial habeas corpus remedies, pursuant to Article 458 of the Criminal Procedures Code in force at the time of the facts, and these remedies were ineffective; e) Mr. Tibi was not under the obligation to exhaust the constitutional habeas corpus remedy; f) the action for damages is not an adequate remedy to decide the situation of the alleged victim, aside from the fact that this argument was not raised by the State during the early stages of the proceeding before the Commission. “A civil action, the aim of which is to obtain financial reparations, cannot be deemed to be appropriate to solve the situation of the victim and to redress the violations of his human rights;” and g) this preliminary objection must be rejected, as it was not submitted clearly during the early stages of the proceeding before the Commission. Furthermore, the State tacitly waived it, by not specifying which remedies had to be exhausted. The waiver is irrevocable. Therefore, the State cannot submit new arguments before this Court. Considerations of the Court