5 “difficulties, problems, situations, or alleged violations of his rights (including his wish for review of the judgment),” a tribunal which, under law, was qualified to receive such complaints during the visits made to the detention center where Mr. Usón was detained. 16. Lastly, the State pointed out that “[i]n the alleged case that the Court […] considers the allegations by the State before the Commission are not sufficient […] to comply with the formal requirement of the objection of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, which must be submitted during the admissibility stage of the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, justice should not be sacrificed because of the omission of non-essential formalities.” In this regard, the State pointed out that “establishing that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies may ‘even be waived tacitly’ implicates that the subsidiary, contributory, or supplementary nature of the Inter-American system may be waived”, to which the State requested the Court to review this criterion. 17. The Commission pointed out that the preliminary objection must be rejected since it was not presented in a timely manner in the petition proceedings before such Commission. The Commission highlighted that the State must allege a preliminary objection for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies during the early stages of the proceedings before the Commission and point out the domestic remedies to be exhausted. Likewise, taking into account its fitness, the State must show that such remedies are adequate and effective. However, the Commission highlighted that in this case the State submitted such objection extemporaneously; therefore, it is understood that it waived its right to such defense. Similarly, the Commission pointed out that the State did not allege or showed before the Commission that there were valid remedies at domestic level. The Commission indicated that the references to other possible remedies or actions available at domestic level have been made by the State before the Court for the first time, so they are extemporaneous. Lastly, the Commission pointed out that it had already adopted an express decision on the admissibility of the petition in its report of March 15, 2006. 18. In turn, the representatives only pointed out that they hold “to the reiterated jurisprudence of the [Court] and, on that basis, they request[ed] the rejection of the [preliminary objection].” 19. This Tribunal,9 similar to the European Court of Human Rights,10 has affirmed consistently that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be submitted in a timely manner from the procedural standpoint; otherwise, the State shall have missed the possibility to submit such defense before this Tribunal. Additionally the State submitting such objection must specify the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted, as well as show that such remedies were available and adequate, suitable and effective.11 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 18, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 20. 10 Cf. ECHR, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp Cases ("Vagrancy") v. Belgium, judgment of 18 June 1971, § 55, Series A no. 12; ECHR, Foti et al. v. Italy, judgment of 10 December 1982, § 46, Series A no. 56, and Case of Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, (merits and just satisfaction), no. 57953/00; 37392/03, §. 90, § 91, ECHR 2007-I. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 91; Case of Garibaldi v. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September, 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 46, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 28.