52. The Commission also stresses that the facts analyzed in this section should be officially
investigated by the State, which has known of these incidents through the complaints filed by
Mr. Uzcátegui and the provisional measures granted on his behalf by the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, as threats against the life of the alleged victim and other forms of aggression
and harassment by State agents. The duty of the State to officially investigate is especially
relevant in this case, which has an order from said Court to adopt the necessary measures to
clarify the acts and punish the responsible parties.
53. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that with respect to the acts against
Luís Uzcátegui, there has also been an unjustified delay in the decision and, therefore, in light
of Article 46.2.c of the Convention, the petitioners are exempted from exhausting the domestic
remedies.
c.
With Respect to the Criminal Proceedings for Aggravated Defamation Filed
against Luís Uzcátegui
54. According to available information, the proceedings for aggravated defamation filed against
Luís Uzcátegui, which the petitioners consider to be a form of “judicial harassment,” have been
in course since February 7, 2003 (with oral proceedings having been ordered since April 2005,
though up to now they have not been completed). The petitioners alleged that there are no
grounds sustaining the situation of “legal uncertainty” faced by the alleged victim as a
consequence of the aforementioned process. In turn, by not giving a response to the petition,
the State did not challenge these acts.
55. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the IACHR considers that the three years without having
conducted the oral and public proceedings (and therefore not having a definitive decision in the
criminal case against Mr. Luís Uzcátegui), in addition to the fact that the State did not give any
grounds for the aforementioned delay, are sufficient elements to consider that there was an
unjustified delay in the decision with respect to this fact and, as a result, Article 46.2.c of the
Convention should be applied.
56. The Commission reiterates that invoking the exceptions to the prior exhaustion
requirement of Article 46.2 of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of the
possible violations of certain rights established therein, such as the guarantees of access to
justice. Nonetheless, Article 46.2 of the American Convention, by its nature and purpose, is a
rule that stands autonomously from the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore,
the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic
remedies provided for in said provision are applicable to the case in question should be made
prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits, since it depends on a different standard
of appreciation from that used to determine violations of Articles 8, and 25 of the Convention.
It should be clarified that the causes and effects that have impeded the exhaustion of domestic
remedies in this case will be analyzed, as relevant, in the Report the Commission adopts on
the merits of the dispute, to determine if violations of the American Convention have indeed
taken place.
3.
Deadline for lodging the petition
57. Article 46.1.b of the Convention establishes that for a petition to be admissible, it must be
submitted within a period of six months from the date on which the interested party was
notified of the final judgment that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. This rule has no
application when the Commission deems there to be some of the exceptions to the exhaustion
of domestic remedies enshrined in Article 46.2 of the Convention. In these cases, the
Commission must determine if the petition was submitted in a reasonable period of time
pursuant to Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure.
58. The Commission observes that the facts in this case began to occur on January 1, 2001,
existing ongoing grounds domestically with respect to each one of these facts. The petition was
submitted on March 14, 2007, and the petitioners alleged the existence of an unjustified delay
11