2 points who undersignes, from the several facts denounced to the Public Ministry, consisting on verbal agressions, difamation, insult, which are not facts that should have been denounced to said organ, as the petitioners did; because when responding to such illicit private acts, the legal remedie is to present it to the legal court competent by territory, which they have not even done – as a legal domestic resource-”. From the above said, it is evident that from the beginning, the exhaustion of domestic remedies constituted a defense of the State in which they pointed that, not only have not been exhausted all domestic remedies, but it added that there were other legal resources; this defense was in its opportunity dismissed by the Commission and was again alleged before this Court, and as recorded on the order I dissent, it was dismissed again. In this sense, the judgment I dissent pronounces anticipatedlly on matter that should be decided by Venezuelan jurisdictional organs. Therefore, the request presented before this Court should have been declared inadmissible from the beginning, or before declaring on the Merits of the case, and consequently declare it closed. The foregoing consideration is based on the following reasons: 1.1. On Consistency I understand that there are actions, petitions or remedies within the Venezuelan legislation that could still settle and satisfy, eventually, the same claims put forward before this international instance (contained in the application filed by the Commission or in its autonomous brief), to which the petitioners did not resort. It spring from the reading of the application filed by the Commission- and similarly, from the autonomous brief containing the requests 2-, that, in accordance with the 2 In fact, it was put forward in the autonomous brief of requests of the alleged victims that: “1) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in Article 1.1 regarding: a. Mental integrity: …omissis... b. B. physical integrity .... omissis ... And that for these violations, the State is held internationally responsable. 2) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in Article 1(1) and that it is held internationally responsible for such violation. 3) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to property enshrined in Article 21 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in Article 1(1) and that it is held internationally responsible for such violation. 4) The Venezuelan Articles 8 and 25 of and guarantee the responsible for such State has violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect human rights established in Article 1(1) and that it is held internationally violation. As a consequence, in light of the violations declared and after the adjudication of international responsibility of the Venezuelan State for such violations, the State is required to adopt the following measures of reparations for the victims: 1. To adopt the measures necessary to stop and prevent those actions of officials or government agents as well as of private individuals that affect the personal integrity, that