decided together with the substantive matters. Thus, the application of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been considered as a whole, 35 owing to an unwarranted delay during the investigations or proceedings, 36 and the absence of adequate and effective remedies. 37 The Court even indicated in the Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil that “[a]t the time the Commission issued its Report [on Admissibility], more than 19 years ha[d] passed since the filing of [the ordinary action and] there had been no final decision on the merits in the domestic sphere. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the delay in the proceedings could not be considered reasonable”; hence, “the Court [did] not find evidence to change […] the decision taken by the Inter-American Commission. Added to this, […] the Court observe[d] that the State’s arguments concerning the effectiveness of the remedy and the inexistence of an unwarranted delay in the ordinary action relate[d] to matters with regard to the merits of the case, because they contested the arguments concerning the presumed violation of Articles 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention” (underlining added). Consequently [both the Commission and the Court] considered that it was not possible to require the exhaustion of domestic remedies and applied Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention to the case. 38 56. The new theory of the “early stage” used in this Judgment represents a step backwards that affects the whole of the inter-American system as regards the matters before the Inter-American Commission and the cases pending the decision of the Court, because it has negative consequences for the presumed victims in the exercise of the right of access to justice. Accepting that, at the “early stages” of the proceedings, no violations can be determined (because they could eventually be remedied at subsequent stages), creates a precedent that would entail ranking the severity of the violations based on the stage of the proceedings. Moreover, since it is due to the State itself that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted in this case, because it did not even process the requests – of October 4 and November 8, 2005 – for the annulment of the proceedings due to the violation of fundamental rights. Consequently, admitting the preliminary objection is contrary to the Inter-American Court’s criteria since the Case of Velásquez Rodríguez in which it considered that: “If the Court, then, were to sustain the Government's objection and declare that effective judicial remedies are available, it would be prejudging the merits without having heard the evidence and arguments of the Commission or those of the Government. If, on the 35 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 95; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 94, and Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 97. 36 Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, paras. 29, 30 and 31; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, paras. 38 and 39; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 68 and 69; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 19 and 20; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 39; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 19; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 42, and Case of Osorio Rivera v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013, Series C No. 275, para. 23. 37 Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012, Series C No. 244, para. 126. 38 Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 42. 13