b. that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment; (….) 2. The provisions of paragraphs 1.a. y 1.b. of this article shall not be applicable when: a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (…..) c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 31. The cited provisions of the Convention require the exhaustion of available domestic remedies in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has established that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is designed to benefit the state. Hence, it may expressly or tacitly waive pursuit of such remedies. In order to assume that the state has not tacitly waived pursuit of such remedies, this must be stated expressly and opportunely in the initial stages of the processing of the case by the Commission. The presentation of information on the status of domestic judicial proceedings alone is not equivalent to explicit reference to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies.7 32. Both the petitioner and the State agree that the domestic remedies available with respect to the complaints lodged by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the investigation and the court proceedings in the case in question were exhausted with the judgment issued by the Permanent Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 12, 2003, which settled the jurisdictional dispute between the ordinary courts and the military criminal courts.8 33. In the second communication, supra 25, the State argued that the presumed victim did not exhaust the domestic legal remedies, and that he had the meanings to present a criminal denouncement against the subofficial Hilaquita Quispe, for the crime of serious injuries, since there was no final judicial resolution in the ordinary channel, even thought it was a matter within its jurisdiction. The State argued that it would violate the non bis in idemprinciple. 34. For the Commission, those argues are so contradictory that lack convincing support, precisely because a criminal court of the Supreme Judicial Court (Sala Penal de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) defined the conflict of jurisdiction in a resolution of May 12, 2003, in favor of the military justice and considered that the facts constitute a crime committed by a Peruvian subofficial of the Army, while in service “… they solved the conflict of jurisdiction in favor of the Permanent Fifth Military Court in Huancayo - Second Judicial Zone of the Army, where the case against Juan Hilaquita Quispe, for the crime of serious injuries caused to Valdemir Quispialaya Vilcapoma, would be sent;…’’ 35. The Commission has stated that whenever a crime is committed that can be prosecuted on the State’s own initiative, the State has the duty to set in motion the criminal justice process, and to follow it through to its ultimate consequences and that, in those cases, this is the suitable way to clarify the facts, prosecute the persons responsible, and establish the corresponding criminal sanctions, in addition to making possible other forms of economic reparation9.. The Commission observed that the Peruvian government has not initiated a new criminal action for the crime of serious injuries, thru the Office of the Prosecutor, as its 7 Inter-American Court, Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996, para. 40;Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, para. 40; Castillo Petruzzi Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of September 4, 1998, paragraph 56; Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingi Case, Judgment of February 1, 2000, paragraphs 54 to 56. 8 Id. footnote 3, II Considerations, 2.3 and COMISEDH Complaint, February 3, 2004, para 35. 9 IACHR, Sport 14-04, Case 11,562, Luís Antonio Galindo Cárdenas, February 27,2004, para. 38. IACHR, Report 8301, Case 11.581, Zulema Tarazona Arriate, Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura vs Peru, October 10, 2001, para. 25 6