23. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae, because the petition claims
violations of human rights protected under the American Convention.
ii.
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
24. Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes as a requirement for the admissibility
of a complaint the prior exhaustion of remedies available in the State’s domestic jurisdiction.
The petitioner alleges that the domestic remedies were exhausted through the decision of the
judicial closure body (Supreme Court of Justice) dated October 14, 2004. For its part, the
State did not submit preliminary objections regarding a failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
Consequently, the Commission feels that the Venezuelan State did not invoke a failure to
exhaust domestic remedies in the initial phases of the proceeding.
25. The Inter-American Court has established on numerous occasions that “the objection
asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be timely, must be made at an early
stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the requirement be
presumed.” 12
26.Therefore, the Commission feels that the Venezuelan State waived the objection asserting
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in that it did not submit it at the first procedural
opportunity it had, i.e., in its response to the petition that started the procedure.
iii.
Timeliness of the petition
27. In the petition under consideration, the IACHR has concluded that the State of Venezuela
tacitly waived its right to file an objection asserting non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, for
which reason Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention does not apply. Nonetheless, the
provisions of the Convention that require prior exhaustion of domestic remedies and the
submission of the petition within a period of six months from the date of the final decision in
the domestic jurisdiction are independent. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission must
determine whether the petition in question was submitted within a reasonable period of time.
In this respect, the IACHR notes that the final decision of the judicial closure body (Supreme
Court of Justice) was rendered on October 14, 2004. The petition was filed on April 13, 2005,
for which reason the Commission considers that it was submitted in a reasonable period of
time.
iv.
Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata
28. The file does not indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in any other
proceeding in the international arena, nor does it reproduce a petition already examined by
this body or another international body. Therefore, it is appropriate to rule that the
requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met.
v.
Characterization of the alleged facts
29. For purposes of admissibility, the IACHR must decide whether the petition presents facts
that could be characterized as a violation, as stipulated by Article 47(b) of the American
Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as
indicated in Article 47(c).
12
The Inter-American Court has stated: [The] objection asserting the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, to be
timely, must be made at an early stage of the proceedings by the State entitled to make it, lest a waiver of the
requirement be presumed.” See: Velásquez Rodríguez case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987,
Series C No. 1, para. 88; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987,
Series C No. 2, para. 87; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 3, para.
90; Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 4, 1991, Series C No. 12, para. 38; Neira
Alegría et al. Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991, Series C No. 13, para. 30; Castillo Páez
Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 30, 1996, Series C No. 24, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case,
Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, para. 40.
6