this harm.230 In this regard, a complaint or difference of opinion with regard to the conduct of the Inter-American Commission is not sufficient.231 116. The Court will now assess whether, in this case, the formal and material presumptions exist to admit a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.232 To this end, it will begin by presenting a chronological summary of the pertinent facts. 117. First, the Court notes that, the initial petition of October 12, 2005,233 did not allege that domestic remedies had been exhausted, but rather the petition merely transcribed Article 46 of the American Convention and made the two following statements, one of them before the transcription of the said article and the other after: “Owing to the legal situation of the citizen Raúl Díaz Peña in Venezuela in the instant case, the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46 has been complied with,” [and] […] “The citizen Díaz Peña is defenseless before the Venezuelan courts owing to the influence of some members of the Legislature and the Executive. Because of this defenselessness, he has been obliged to seek the protection of the […] Commission.” 118. After a copy of the original petition had been forwarded to it, the State, in a brief of May 3, 2007, presented its observations on the petition in which it referred to the criminal proceedings instituted against Mr. Díaz Peña, rejected everything set out in the petition, and affirmed that “this case d[id] not meet the requirements to be admitted by the Commission, because proceedings were underway before the competent organs of the State, in which, at all times, the human rights of [Mr.] Díaz had been guaranteed and, in addition, the existing domestic remedies had not been exhausted.”234 Venezuela repeated these assertions in briefs of August 5 and 8, 2007.235 In the second brief, presented in the context of the precautionary measures adopted by the Commission, the State made specific reference to Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 119. In its admissibility report of March 20, 2009,236 the Commission: a) Did not rule on the petitioner’s argument that the exceptions to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies were applicable. 230 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 14, para. 66, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costas. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 22. 231 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. United Mexican States. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 42, and 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. 27. 232 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 42, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 13. 233 Cf. Initial petition of October 12, 2005 (evidence file, tome V, folios 3138 to 3152). 234 Note AGEV/000600 of May 3, 2007, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Agent of the State of Venezuela (evidence file, tome XXV, folios 17191 to 17209). 235 Cf. Note AGEV/000863 of August 5, 2007, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Agent of the State of Venezuela (evidence file, tome XXV, folios 17210 to 17218), and Note AGEV/000940 of August 8, 2007, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Agent of the State of Venezuela (evidence file, tome XXV, folios 17225 to 17235). 236 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 23/09, Petition 1133-05 Raúl José Díaz Peña - Venezuela, issued by the Inter-American Commission on March 20, 2009 (file of proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, tome I, folios 441 to 445). 44