because, under Venezuelan law, the condition of being one of the accused does not constitute a legal impediment to testifying.” 90 90. Second, the representatives argued that they “were unable to be present during the testimony of any of the witnesses, and could only cross-examine a few of them”; in particular, they argued that they were unable to be present during the examination of Patricia Polea, and the prosecutor had refused this verbally on the day the interview was held. 91 On this point, the case law established in the case of Barreto Leyva is relevant in the sense that, of necessity, it must be possible to exercise the right of defense as soon as a person is implicated as a possible author of, or participant in, a wrongful act and this right only ceases when the proceedings – including, if appropriate, the stage of execution of judgment – have concluded. To maintain the contrary, would entail making the guarantees under the Convention that protect the right to defend oneself dependent on the proceedings being at a specific stage, leaving open the possibility that, prior to this, the rights of the person under investigation could be impaired by actions of the authorities that he is unaware of or which he cannot control or oppose effectively, which is evidently contrary to the American Convention. Preventing a persons from exercising his right of defense as of the start of the investigation against him, and if the authorities order or execute actions that entail an impairment of his rights, signifies empowering the investigative authority of the State to the detriment of fundamental rights of the person investigated. The right of defense obliges the State to treat the individual, at all times, as a true subject of the proceedings, in the broadest sense of this concept, and not simply as an object of them. 92 91. From all the preceding considerations, we again reach the conclusion that the InterAmerican Court should have delayed the examination of the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, until the examination of the merits of the case, because the dispute evidently encompasses aspects of both admissibility and merits in relation to the judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention, specifically with regard to the right to an independent and impartial judge or court (Art. 8(1) ACHR), the right to an adequate defense (Art. 8(2)(c) ACHR) and the right to cross-examine witnesses and to obtain the appearance of persons who may throw light on the facts (8(2)(f) ACHR). And the contrived argument of the “early stage” of the proceedings — that appears in the Judgment – should not have been used to avoid examining the merits of the case. 2.2.c There has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies (Art. 46(2)(c) of the American Convention) 92. In order to determine the admissibility of this exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Judgment analyzed the dispute between the parties concerning: (i) the time frame and the procedural stage established in domestic law for deciding requests for annulment, and (ii) the need for the presence of the accused at the preliminary hearing and the reasons why the hearing was delayed. 93. Our dissenting position stems, precisely from the reasoning that disputes such as: whether or not the request for annulment could be decided without Mr. Brewer’s presence 90 Folio 161 (tome I) of the merits file. 91 This refusal was based on article 306 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure which stipulated that: “The Public Prosecution Service may allow the accused, the victims or their representatives to be present during the measures taken [in the preliminary stage], when their presence would be useful to clarify the facts and would not prejudice the success of the investigation or prevent prompt and regular proceedings.” 92 Case of Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 30. 23