6 State, were not fully exhausted. A brief comment regarding such remedies will be made below. The domestic remedies described, in the opinion of the undersigned, comply with the requirements of the Convention, according to which States Parties have the obligation to provide effective legal remedies to the alleged victims of human rights violations (Article 25), and to substantiate such remedies pursuant to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all of that in accordance with the general obligation of States Parties to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights enshrined in the Convention (Article 1(1)). It spring from the court records followed before this Court, when compared to the what has been alleged herein, that the alleged victims did not effectively exhaust those remedies tending to the protection of human rights, the reparation of damage, among other things, provided for by domestic law , which under the terms of Articles 46(a) and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1969) 5, constitute grounds of inadmissibility, which in my opinion, was an issue of international public law verifiable, even unofficially, by the Commission6 or the Court, even when, as has been mentioned, this preliminary objection was initially raised by the Venezuelan State before this Court at the moment of answering the application. It is then that only upon the exhaustion of these remedies (and bearing in mind the proper consistency and connection that must exist between the petition made before the domestic courts and the petition that should be made before the Commission and this Court) the parties shall be able to resort to the Inter-American system of protection or, failing that, to prove that the remedies are ineffective and inoperative to solve the issue at stake. In other words, the petition lodged before this Inter-American system for the protection of human rights must be closely related to the remedies exhausted at the domestic level in order to verify, among other things, the suitability of the proceeding chosen to protect, at the international level, the situation reported to be violated, as well as the proper exhaustion of domestic remedies, all this to give the State the possibility of not only examining and determining, by means of the domestic remedies, the case but also repairing the damage probable caused. The international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary, reinforcing and complementary 7 nature. 5 Article 46 1. Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law; (…) Article 47 The Commission shall consider inadmissible any petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 or 45 if: a) any of the requirements indicated in Article 46 has not been met; (…) 6 According to Article 31 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Commission shall verify whether the remedies of the domestic legal system have been pursued and exhausted. 7 Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. V. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 47; the Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. (Art. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, Series A Nº.2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, Series A Nº.6, para. 26, and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61.