B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 21. Article 46.1 (a) of the American Convention provides that, for a complaint filed with the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, it is necessary for all domestic remedies to have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to hear an alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to provide a solution before the claim is heard in an international venue. 22. The requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable when adequate and effective remedies to the alleged violation are available within the domestic system. In this respect, Article 46.2 specifies that the requirement is not applicable when domestic legislation does afford due process of law to protect the right allegedly violated; or if the alleged victim was denied access to the remedies available under domestic law; of if there has been unwarranted delay in issuing a decision concerning those remedies. As provided in Article 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, when the petitioner claims one of these exceptions, it is the burden of the state to prove that domestic remedies have not been exhausted unless that is clearly evident from the record. 23. It can be inferred from principles of international law reflected in precedent established by the Commission and the Inter-American Court that, first, the state being sued can tacitly or explicitly renounce invoking this rule 3. Second, in order for the exception for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be considered, it must be introduced during the initial stages of the proceedings before the Commission, or, in its absence, the Commission presumes that the interested state has tacitly renounced the right to avail itself of the exception 4. Third, in accordance with the criteria for burden of proof applicable in the matter, a state that claims the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must outline the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and provide proof of their effectiveness 5. 24. As noted in paragraph 16, the Venezuelan state did not respond to this petition and, in that regard, it tacitly renounced invoking the exception of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For his part, the petitioner alleged an unwarranted delay in the handing down of a decision on the petitions for domestic remedies filed by him in this case. 25. The Commission notes that the legal remedies pursued by the petitioner are: i) petition to nullify together with a precautionary amparo petition filed in the Politico Administrative Chamber against the administrative actions that determined his administrative responsibility; and ii) action of unconstitutionality against Article 105 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic filed in the Constitutional Chamber. 3 IA Court HR., Case of Ximenes Lopes. Preliminary Exception . Sentence dated November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, par. 5; IACourt HR., Case of the Moiwana Community. Sentence dated June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 49; and IA Court HR, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Exceptions. Sentencw dated November 23, Series C No. 118, par. 135; IACHR, Report Nº 69/05, petition 960/03, Admissibility, Iván Eladio Torres, Argentina, October 13, 2005, par. 42. 4 IA Court HR, Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni. Preliminary Exceptions. Sentence dated February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, par. 53; Case Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Preliminary Exceptions. Sentence dated September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, par. 56; and IA Court HR, Case of Loayza Tamayo. Preliminary Exceptions. Sentence dated January 31,1996. Series C No.25, par. 40. The Commission and the Court have established that “[l]the first stages of the proceedings” mean “the admissibility phase of the proceeding before the Commission, that is, prior to any consideration of the merits[…]”. See, for example, IACHR Report Nº 71/05, petition 543/04, Admissibility, Ever de Jesés Montero Mindiola, Colombia, 1October 13, 2005, which cites IA Court HR, Case Herrera Ulloa. Sentence dated July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, par. 81. 5 IACHR, Report Nº 32/05, petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral and other persons affected by HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, March 7, 2005, par. 33-35; IA CourT HR., Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni. Preliminary Exceptions, subpar. item 3, par. 53; Case Durand y Ugarte. Preliminary Exceptions. Sentence dated May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, par. 33; and Case Cantoral Benavides. Preliminary Exceptions. Sentence dated September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, par. 31. 4