specifically on October 25, 2007, the hearing was postponed, because the court was awaiting the “appeal filed by the legal representative of [Mr.] Brewer Carías” against the note sent to INTERPOL. 165 143. Based on this information, it should be underlined that the case file contains proof that Mr. Brewer Carías left Venezuela on September 29, 2005 (supra para. 58); in other words, before formal charges had been brought against him and before the first summons to the preliminary hearing had been issued to the parties (supra para. 66). Hence, Mr. Brewer Carías would not have been able to attend that hearing. Consequently, his absence has meant that it has not been possible to hold the preliminary hearing against him, so that it can be affirmed that the delay in deciding the requests for annulment could be attributed to his decision not to submit to the proceedings, and has an impact on the analysis of the unwarranted delay or reasonable time. Consequently, there in a contradiction in the fact that the Commission’s Admissibility Report considered that an unwarranted delay could not be attributed to the State, but found, to the contrary, that the failure to decide the request for annulment was an indication of delay that could be attributed to the State. B.3.4. Conclusion concerning the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies 144. Taking into account the preceding considerations, the Court admits the preliminary objection, because it considers that, in this case, the appropriate and effective remedies were not exhausted, and that the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of the said remedies was not admissible. Consequently, it is not in order to proceed to the analysis of the merits. IV OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS THEREFORE, THE COURT DECLARES: By four votes to two, 1. That in the instant case the domestic remedies were not exhausted, in accordance with paragraphs 77 to 144 of this Judgment. DECIDES: Court of February 23, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 21, folio 18325); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of March 26, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 22, folio 18579); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of May 4, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 23, folio 18963); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of June 27, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 23, folio 19185); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of July 31, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 23, folio 19304); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of September 27, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 24, folio 19430), and Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of November 29, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 24, folio 19643). 165 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of November 29, 2007 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 24, folio 19643). 46