-21120. In its brief containing the answer to the application and in its submission of comments on the petitions and arguments, Peru claimed before the Court the failure to exhaust the remedies “regarding the cause of action in the case of Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima – ESMLL (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation)”, since “the […] case […] is at the midst of the enforcement phase.” 121. The American Convention provides that the Court exercises full jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to a case, including jurisdiction over the procedural prerequisites which are the basis of its authority to hear a case.2 122. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that in order to decide on the admissibility of a petition or communication filed before the Inter-American Commission pursuant to Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that all domestic remedies have been filed and exhausted, according to the generally recognized principles of international law.3 123. The Court has argued that Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention provides that domestic remedies must be filed and exhausted according to the generally recognized principles of international law, which implies that not only should such remedies formally exist, but also be adequate and effective, as it is derived from the exceptions set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention.4 124. The Court reaffirms the criteria regarding the filing of the objection for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies, criteria which is to be considered in the instant case. First, the Court has pointed out that the matter of the failure to exhaust remedies is one of pure admissibility and that the State which alleges it must express which domestic remedies should be exhausted, as well as prove the effectiveness thereof. Second, for the objection of failure to exhaust the domestic remedies to be held timely, it should be filed at the admissibility stage of the proceeding before the Commission, that is, before any consideration of the merits of the case; otherwise, the State is assumed to have waived constructively its right to resort to it. Third, the respondent State may waive, either expressly or implicitly, the right to raise an objection for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies.5 2 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 132; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 47; and Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 79. 3 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 4; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 48; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 133. 4 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, supra note 2, para. 134; Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, supra note 2, para. 50; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53. 5 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, para. 5; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 3, para. 49; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Comments, supra note 2, para. 135.