Therefore, if the State does not submit timely arguments regarding this requirement, it is considered to have renounced the right to allege nonexhaustion of domestic remedies and the need to satisfy the corresponding burden of proof. 38. As was stated in paragraph 28 to 31 above, the State indicated only informed about the penal process against the presumed victim indicating that such was pursuit in accordance and respect of the Venezuelan law, while also informing about the decision of December 2007 by which the Court of Execution ordered to conditionally suspend the execution of the sentence for one year. Consequently, the State had not presented a response with regard to exhaustion and has thus tacitly renounced its right to object on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 39. The Commission observes that throughout the trial the petitioner exercised the normal remedies available to him – appeal - and attempted to use special remedies - cassation and amparo - challenging not only the conviction, but also the alleged violations of due process and the prohibition to leave the country, but that none of these resulted in favorable decisions. The petitioner alleged that once the decision of February 7, 2006 denied his last attempt, the cassation appeal, there was no further recourse. The State, for its part, did not indicate any additional remedies which the petitioner could have used. 40. The Commission observes that the cassation remedy attempted before the Supreme Court was ruled inadmissible on February 7, 2006 on the grounds that the second instance decision was not appealable in this way according to Article 459 of the Organic Criminal Procedure Code.8 Additionally, a reading of the relevant provisions of said Code does not seem evident that the decision can be appealable under any other mechanism. 41. In this regard, the Commission finds that the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention was satisfied on the date when the Criminal Cassation Court of the TSJ denied the cassation appeal. 2. Deadline for presentation Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31. 8 Decision of the Cassation Court of the Supreme Court dated February 7, 2006 which denied the appeal.