25. The Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition refers to complaints regarding violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. The Commission also is competent ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected under the American Convention was already binding upon the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission isratione loci competent to take cognizance of the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected under American Convention, said to have occurred in the territory of a State party to said instrument. B. Requirements for the admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 26. The petitioner claims that the judgment of the Martial Court of the Military Criminal Judicial Circuit of January 27, 2005, which denied the appeal lodged against the judgment handed down on October 11, 2004 by the First Military Trial Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, exhausted the remedies provided by Venezuela’s domestic legislation. In its response to the complaint, however, the State has not submitted observations regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 27. The Commission considers it advisable to note that on June 2, 2005, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela denied the motion, lodged by Mr. Usón’s defense, to vacate the Martial Court’s decision of January 27, 2005. 28. It is important to emphasize that the IACHR has previously noted that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is a requirement established by the Convention, in order to avoid the State having to respond internationally without having before had the opportunity to solve the problem using its domestic mechanisms. This requirement is consequently a defense and, as such, can be waived by the State, even by implication, as in the instant case. 5 Therefore, the Commission considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted in this case and the requirement provided for by article 46.1.a of the American Convention has been met. 2. Timeliness of the petition 29. In the instant petition, the IACHR has established the State’s tacit waiver of its right to use the defense of lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. For this reason, the requirement provided for by article 46.1.b is not applicable. However, the conventional requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and of filing within six months of the judgment that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction are independent of each other. Therefore, the InterAmerican Commission must establish whether the petition under examination was filed within a reasonable time period. In this respect, the IACHR notes that the petition was received on May 23, 2005 and that, hence, that it was lodged within a reasonable time period, given the features of the instant case. 6 4. International duplication of proceedings and res judicata 30. The Commission understands that the file concerning the petition contains no information that would suggest that this complaint is currently pending in another international proceeding and it has received no information to the contrary. The Commission furthermore considers that it does not replicate another petition or communication that it might already have been settled by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that it has met the provisions of articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention. 5 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza-Tamayo. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C, No. 25, para. 40; I/A Court H.R., Castillo-Páez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 30, 1996. Series C, No. 24, para. 40; Neira-Alegría et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C., No. 13, para. 30. 6 IACHR, Report No. 31/03, Petition 12.195, Chile, March 7, 2003; IACHR, Report No. 57/03, Petition 12.337, Chile, October 10, 2003; IACHR, Report No. 3/02, Petition 11.498, Argentina, February 27, 2002. 5