evidence had not started, [and] a first instance judgment ha[d not been delivered that would enable him to file a]n appeal against the judgment, against the final judgment, for annulment, cassation, review, amparo, and [finally,] for constitutional review by the Constitutional Chamber of the Republic of Venezuela.” 99 81. Consequently, the Court considers that the State presented the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies at the appropriate procedural stage in the proceedings before the Commission, based on the argument that the failure to exhaust domestic remedies was constituted because the criminal proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías had not concluded and there were stages during which it was possible to debate the alleged irregularities, and specific remedies that could be filed within the framework of the criminal proceedings. 82. In its Admissibility Report, the Commission focused its analysis on determining whether the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies were admissible. However, the representatives indicated that sufficient remedies had been exhausted to comply with the requirement of Article 46(1); consequently, the Court will rule on this argument. B.3.2. Presentation of appropriate and effective remedies to exhaust the domestic jurisdiction 83. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention stipulates that, in order to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged before the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, it is necessary that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 100 The Court recalls that the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies was conceived in the interests of the State, because it seeks to exempt the latter from responding before an international organ for acts attributed to it before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by its own means. 101 This signifies that such remedies should not only exist formally, but they must also be adequate and effective owing to the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention. 102 84. When the State alleges the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it must at the same time describe the remedies that should be exhausted and their effectiveness. Based on the burden of proof applicable to this matter, the State that argues the failure to exhaust domestic remedies must indicate the domestic remedies that should be exhausted and provide evidence of their effectiveness. In this regard, the Court reiterates that, for more than two decades, its interpretation of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention has been in keeping with international law 103 and that, pursuant to its case law 104 and international 99 The State’s brief of August 31, 2009, before the Commission (annexes to the brief with observations of the presumed victim’s representatives on the preliminary objection filed by the State, tome 1, folio 21873). 100 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, para. 85, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 14. 101 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 15. 102 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 63, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 15. 103 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 22, and Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 47. 27