14 the time the State presented its information to the Commission, in September 1989, proceedings were no longer under way to identify the disappeared persons or to ascertain who was responsible for the human rights violations that occurred when the riot was put down; and d) The State cannot raise this objection, not only because the “reasonable” time period allowed for entering such objection has long since expired, but also because it transgressed the principle of good faith by changing the position it took during the proceedings with the Commission when the case was brought to the Court. When the State reported information to the Commission, it indicated that proceedings were pending and made no reference to the facts denounced or to the supposed inadmissibility of the petition. It cannot, therefore, argue now that the time limit given in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention was not observed. During the public hearing the Commission observed that the State’s preliminary objections were mutually contradictory: whereas it argued that local remedies had not been exhausted, it also claimed that the action was time barred. 58. As for the argument alleging that any action was time barred, the Court notes that this argument contradicts what the State argued in support of its case for failure to exhaust local remedies. As noted on previous occasions, such contradictions do nothing for the principles of procedural economy6 and good faith that must be givens in any proceedings.7 In any case, the Court considers that the State should have entered the time-barred exception at the first stage of the process, to object to the petition filed with the Inter-American Commission on April 27, 1987. 59. The Court also considers that the local remedies were exhausted on October 28, 1986, when the Tribunal of Constitutional Guarantees, as court of last resort, ruled on the petition filed seeking a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mr. Durand Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte Rivera (supra, para. 2.d). This case is not time barred, as alleged, since the complaint was filed with the Commission on April 27, 1987, in other words, within the six-month time limit established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 60. The Court therefore dismisses the fourth preliminary objection. X PROCEDURAL ERROR, LACK OF COMPETENCE AND LACK OF LEGAL STANDING Objection Six 61. The sixth preliminary objection presented by the State concerns the “procedural error, lack of competence and lack of standing (proceedings with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights invalid by reason of […] the omissions and irregularities present).” 6. Cantoral Benavides Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 33, para. 38. 7. Neira Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 33, para. 35.