the domestic level. And this is without prejudice to the possible analysis of the alleged unwarranted delay or the reasonable time (infra para. 143). 89. Similarly, the Court has indicated that requests filed by the defense, such as applications for a declaration of nullity based on failure to comply with legal forms and conditions, or the annulment of an expertise offered by the Public Prosecution Service cannot signify that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 109 Indeed, in the case of Diaz Peña v. Venezuela, the Court concluded, inter alia, that “the appropriate remedy in this regard was the appeal against the judgment delivered at the conclusion of the trial, without prejudice to the possibility of filing an objection owing to the excessive duration of the proceedings.” 110 90. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the context of the criminal proceedings conducted against Mr. Brewer Carías, his defense presented various briefs relating to the alleged guarantees that they considered had been violated. Thus, the accusation against Mr. Brewer Carías occurred on January 27, 2005, owing to his presumed “participation in the drafting and elaboration of the Act constituting the Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity” (supra para. 52). The representatives argued that, following this accusation, they had filed other “remedies” during the prosecutor’s investigation, and that “their uselessness was revealed continually owing to the Public Prosecution Service’s [alleged] arbitrary measures and [presumed] systematic manipulation. In the context of the observations made when determining the pertinent facts to decide the preliminary objection, these briefs were as follows: i) On May 4, 2005, a brief was filed setting out the presumed irregularities that it was considered had occurred during the proceedings, such as the rejection of some of the testimonies requested as well as the transcription of the video (supra para. 54); ii) On August 10, 2005, the defense presented another brief to the Twenty-fifth Judge insisting on the admission of the testimonies offered, the technical transcription of the videos, and compliance with the July 6, 2005, decision of the Court of Appeal in which that court had ordered a different supervisory judge to rule on the brief filed on May 4, 2005 (supra para. 57); iii) On October 26, 2005, the defense asked the Twenty-fifth Judge to guarantee the right of Mr. Brewer Carías “to stand trial as a free man” and also asked for “the pre-trial declaration of the inadmissibility of preventive detention,” since Mr. Brewer did not represent a danger to the public, was employed and active in the academic sphere, and with residence and roots in the country (supra para. 67); iv) On October 28, 2005, the defense appealed a decision of October 20, 2005, which: (a) again rejected the request for the transcription of all the videos, as well as the testimony of four witnesses offered by the defense, and (b) denied the request for a statement from Mr. Carmona Estanga, because it considered that, since he was one of the accused in the case, his statement would have no probative value (supra para. 60); v) The defense Mr. Brewer Carías filed an appeal against the note sent to INTERPOL by the Twenty-fifth Court on September 17, 2007, 111 and requested its annulment; 109 Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 124. 110 Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, para. 124. 111 Note of the Twenty-fifth Court to INTERPOL of September 17, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 23, folios 19387 to 19396). 29