19. In keeping with Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, the petitioner has standing to present petitions to the Commission referring to alleged violations of the human rights established in the American Convention. As for the State, Brazil is a party to the American Convention. The petitioner states as the alleged victim her brother, Damião Ximenes Lopes, whose rights as stated in the Convention the Brazilian State undertook to respect and ensure. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the complaint. Moreover, from an examination of the documents attached by the petitioner, one notes that the Casa de Repouso was a private entity licensed by the Federal Government’s Single Health System, and, as such, could have provided care to Mr. Damião. Nonetheless, the IACHR shall decide on the alleged responsibility of the State for the acts alleged in the report on the merits. 20. The Commission is competent ratione materiae, for the petition refers to alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention at Articles 4, 5(1) and (2), 11, and 25, to the detriment of Damião Ximenes Lopes. 21. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the facts alleged occurred when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established by the Convention was already in force for the State, as it ratified the Convention on September 25, 1992. 22. The Commission is competent ratione loci because the facts alleged occurred in the territory of the Federative Republic of Brazil, which has ratified the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 23. In the present case, the State did not allege failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and therefore one may presume a tacit waiver of the right to invoke the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 24. In this respect, the Inter-American Court has indicated that “the objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be presumed.” 6 The IACHR is of the view that the State tacitly waived this objection. b. Time period for submission 25. In the complaint that is the subject of this report, the Commission determined that the Brazilian State tacitly waived its right to invoke the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. As the Convention requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and submission within six months of the judgment that exhausts the domestic jurisdiction are independent, the Inter-American Commission must determine whether the petition under study was submitted within a reasonable time. This is because, on having determined that the State tacitly waived the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, there is no date certain from which to count the six-month period. The lack of a date certain does not relieve the petitioner of the timely submission requirement. In this regard, the Commission, in view of the particular circumstances of this petition, considers that this complaint was submitted within a reasonable period. c. Duplication of procedure and res judicata 26. The Commission does not see any indication in the record that the complaint brought before this Commission is pending before any other international procedure, and it did not receive any information indicating the existence of such a situation; likewise, there is no indication that it reproduces any petition or communication previously examined by the IACHR. Accordingly, the Commission understands that the requirement of Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) have been met. 6 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 88. 4