11 Commission concerning the list of petitioners prepared on the basis of the judgment of the Constitutional Court, until it filed this preliminary objection. Furthermore, the Court notes that, during the remainder of the proceedings before the Commission, Peru did not present any objection regarding the legitimacy of those who lodged the petition or those who appear as alleged victims. Moreover, the State held various extensive meetings with representatives of the petitioners aimed at reaching a friendly settlement.2 60. Consequently, the State cannot validly adduce the Commission’s actions in relation to the processing and admission of the petitions and, even less, concerning the determination of the alleged victims at this procedural stage, because even though fact that it received timely information on these issues it did not express its disagreement in this regard during the proceedings before the Commission. Since no objection regarding this issue was filed at the proper procedural opportunity, the Court concludes that, based on the estoppel principle, the State cannot adduce it before this Court,3 because it has tacitly waived this possibility. In view of the foregoing, the Court rejects the first preliminary objection “based on expiration” filed by the State. SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Legal defects” 61. The State’s arguments (a) The Commission denaturalized the formalities of the procedure defined in Articles 29 and 37 of its Rules of Procedure by validating facts that it had been informed about as grounds for a precautionary measure, when the domestic jurisdiction had not been exhausted. The State therefore alleged that the Commission should have admitted the petition that originated case 11,830 as a new case, dispensing with the background information contained in the said precautionary measure, regarding which the Commission itself had indicated that “it did not constitute an urgent case,” and (b) In its application, the Commission unduly considered as alleged victims some individuals who are currently employed in Congress as well as dismissed employees who aspire to be reinstated in their posts even though they have collected their social benefits. Consequently, the State requested the Court to exclude those who were in this situation from the case. The Commission’s arguments 2 Cf. minutes of the induction and meetings of the Multisectoral Commission responsible for preparing a final settlement proposal in IACHR 11,830 – Dismissed Congressional Employees dated February 7, 11, 20, and 27, March 31 and April 7, 2003 (file of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, tome 5, folios 3101, 3104, 3106, 3109, 3111 and 3114). 3 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. . Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 65; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al.. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 176, and Case of the Moiwana Community . Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 58.