11. Final written arguments and observations. On March 7 and 8, 2014, the representatives and the State, respectively, presented their final written arguments, and on March 7, 2014, the Commission presented its final written observations. In addition, on April 14, 2014, the representatives of the presumed victims presented their observations on the documents submitted by the State with its final written arguments. III COMPETENCE 12. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, in accordance with Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Venezuela has been a State Party since August 9, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. On September 10, 2012, Venezuela denounced the American Convention, and its denouncement entered into force on September 10, 2013. According to Article 78(2) of the Convention, 10 the Court is competent to hear this case, because the facts examined occurred prior to the entry into force of the denunciation of the Convention. IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES 13. The State presented the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies in relation to the cases of both Igmar Landaeta, and his brother, Eduardo Landaeta. The Court will examine the preliminary objections in the order that the State filed them. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 14. The State filed the preliminary objection indicating that domestic remedies had not been exhausted in keeping with Article 46(1) of the American Convention and that “the petitioners failed to exercise and exhaust the remedies established in Venezuela laws in order to assert their claims and to obtain judicial protection of the rights they considered were being violated.” 15. Regarding Eduardo Landaeta, the State indicated that the domestic proceedings remain ongoing at this time, and observed that the last domestic action was the decision of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the state of Aragua [of October 30, 2012], declaring admissible the remedy of appeal of March 16, 2012, and returning the case to the situation of holding a new oral public trial. The State asserted that, if the judgment in the case was unfavorable to the presumed victims, they could file the appeal for annulment (cassation) and for review of judgment established in the domestic law of Venezuela. 16. In the case of Igmar Landaeta, the State indicated that the last action observed was an order of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the state of Aragua, dated December 22, 2003, ordering that the case be sent to the Central Judicial Archives. This was because no appeal had been filed against the judgment of the same Appellate Court of November 10, 2003, declaring the dismissal of the case, which had therefore become final. The State concluded by pointing out that, in the case of Igmar Landaeta, the remedies granted by the domestic jurisdiction to ensure respect for his rights, such as the appeal for annulment and for review of judgment, had not been filed. 10 Article 78(2) of the Convention establishes that “[s]uch a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the State Party concerned from the obligations contained in this Convention with respect to any act that may constitute a violation of those obligations and that has been taken by that state prior to the effective date of denunciation.” 6