rule of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies are invoked, such as the ineffectiveness of such remedies or the lack of due process of law, not only is it contended that the victim is under no obligation to pursue such remedies, but, indirectly, the State in question is also charged with a new violation of the obligations assumed under the Convention. Thus, the question of domestic remedies is closely tied to the merits of the case (underlining and bold added). 49. The Judgment refers to the case of Velázquez Rodríguez where it is worth underscoring that, although the Court recognized that “the mere fact that a domestic remedy does not produce a favorable result for the petitioner does not, in itself, demonstrate the inexistence or exhaustion of all effective domestic remedies; because, for example, the petitioner may not have invoked the appropriate remedy in a timely fashion.” 28 This precedent also adds that: “68. It is a different matter […] when it is shown that remedies are denied for trivial reasons or without an examination of the merits, of if there is proof of the existence of a practice or policy ordered or tolerated by the Government, the effect of which is to impede certain persons from invoking domestic remedies that would normally be available to others. In such cases, resort to those remedies becomes a senseless formality. The exceptions of Article 46(2) would be fully applicable in those situations and would waive the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies that, I practice, cannot accomplish their objective” 29 (underlining added). 50. In this case, the representatives of Mr. Brewer used the means of contestation established in Venezuelan law – application for a declaration of absolute nullity – in order to guarantee his fundamental rights in the criminal proceedings. In the Judgment, it is affirmed that the Venezuelan criminal proceedings instituted against Mr. Brewer Carías are at an “early stage,” so that other domestic remedies remained pending at later stages that could have ensured his rights. In the words of the majority opinion: “[I]n this case, in which the preliminary hearing and, at least, a first instance decision are still pending, it is not possible to rule on the presumed violation of judicial guarantees, because there is still no certainty about how the proceedings will go forward and whether many of the allegations made may be rectified at the domestic level. And this is without prejudice to the possible analysis of the alleged unwarranted delay or the reasonable time,” taking into consideration that “the proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías are still at the intermediate stage, because the preliminary hearing has not been held yet and, consequently, the oral trial has not taken place; hence, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings are at an early stage. This means that it is not possible to analyze the negative impact that a decision could have if taken at in the early stages when such decisions may be amended or rectified by means of the remedies or actions established in domestic law” 30 (underlining added). 51. In addition, regarding the remedies during the intermediate stage and the oral trial, the majority opinion stated that: “Owing to the early stage that the proceedings were at, the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías filed the different requests for a declaration of nullity […]. However, they did not file the remedies that the State indicated were appropriate; namely, the remedy of appeal established in articles 451 to 458 of the OCCP, the remedy of cassation indicated in articles 459 to 469 of the OCCP, and the appeal for review indicated in articles 470 to 477 of the OCCP. In this regard, the State alleged the existence of “[t]he remedies 28 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 67. 29 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 68. 30 Paras. 88 and 96 of the Judgment. 11