submit to the proceedings and has an impact on the analysis of the unwarranted delay or reasonable time. 32. Thus, in the Judgment, the Court admitted the preliminary objection presented by the Venezuelan State, because it considered that, in this case, the appropriate and effective remedies were not exhausted and that the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies were not admissible. Consequently, it decided that it was not in order to proceed to analyze the merits. 2. Dissent 33. Our dissent stems specifically from the considerations made in the Judgment concerning: (1) the filing of the appropriate and effective remedies to exhaust the domestic jurisdiction (Art. 46(1)(a), of the ACHR), and (2) the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (Art. 46(2) of the ACHR). We will now set out our considerations in this regard. 2.1 Filing of the appropriate and effective remedies to exhaust the domestic jurisdiction 34. The majority opinion has considered that the two requests for a declaration of absolute nullity filed by the representatives of Mr. Brewer Carías in the criminal proceedings do not constitute an appropriate remedy to exhaust the domestic jurisdiction, because the representatives did not file the remedies that the State indicated were appropriate; namely, the remedy of appeal established in article 453 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, the remedy of cassation indicated in article 459 of the Code, and the appeal for review indicated in article 470 of the said Code, among others. 35. In addition, in the Judgment, it was indicated that the criminal proceedings instituted against Mr. Brewer Carías were at an “early stage,” because the preliminary hearing and a decision, at least, in first instance were pending. According to the majority opinion, this means that it is not possible to analyze the negative impact that a decision may have if it occurs during the early stages of the proceedings, when these decisions may be amended or rectified by remedies or actions stipulated in domestic law. 2.1.a The filing of the objection at the appropriate procedural stage 36. First, we should indicate that it should not be forgotten that at the admissibility stage, during the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, the State did not in fact specify the effective and appropriate remedies, but merely indicated, in general, that no first instance judgment had been delivered that would make it possible to file the remedies of appeal of decisions, appeal of the final judgment, revocation, cassation, review of the facts in a criminal matter, amparo and constitutional review. All the State really did was to mention all the remedies available at the different stages of the proceedings, but it did not refer, specifically, to appeals for a declaration of nullity, and to whether these were appropriate and effective remedies. 12 37. We should recall that the burden of proof lies with the defendant State. Indeed, it has been the Court’s consistent case law that an objection to the exercise of its jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be presented at the 12 Briefs of the State of August 25 and 31, 2009, before the Inter-American Commission. 7