7 jurisprudence 13 it is not the Court or the Commission’s task to identify ex officio which domestic remedies shall be exhausted, but instead it corresponds to the State to point out in a timely manner the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. Likewise, it does not correspond to the international bodies to correct the lack of precision of the State’s arguments.14 24. Due to the aforementioned, the Court dismisses the preliminary objection. IV COMPETENCE 25. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear the present case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Venezuela is a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977 and it acknowledged the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 24, 1981. V EVIDENCE 26. Based on the stipulations of Article 44 and 45 of its Rules of Procedures, as well as with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal regarding the evidence and its assessment, 15 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidentiary elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural opportunities, as well as the statements offered through affidavit and those received in public hearing. For this, the Tribunal will obey the rules of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework.16 1. Testimonial and expert evidence 27. The statements offered before a notary public (affidavit) by the following witnesses and experts were received:17 a) José Luis Irazu Silva. Judge of the Superior Court (Single Chamber) of the Teenage Section of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. Witness proposed by the representatives. He testified, inter alia, on the impact the provisional justice has had in the Judicial Power and in 13 Cf. ECHR. Case of Deweer v. Belgium, Judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, para. 26; ECHR. Case of Foti and Others v. Italy, supra nota 11, para. 48, and ECHR. Case of De Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, para. 36. 14 Cf. ECHR. Case of Bozano v. France, Judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, para. 46. 15 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 91, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 36. 16 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 37; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 112, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 36. 17 On November 17, 2008 the State informed that “due to different reasons that are beyond its responsibility, the expert Andrés Eloy Brito has been prevented from offering his expert opinion before a notary public” and that “in order to facilitate the processing of the present case, the State of Venezuela desists from presenting the mentioned expert opinion.”