corresponding legal opportunity, the petitioner did not file the remedy established by law to contest the decision dismissing the case, […] the appeal for annulment, 27 and since he did not do this, the judgment became final. […] The case was closed owing to the inactivity of the petitioner, who did not file the legal remedies available to him opportunely, and the State was not obliged to file them subsequently.” The Commission issued its Admissibility Report on March 20, 2009, applying the exception established in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention. 28 The Commission determined that the State had “filed the objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies opportunely,” 29 but considered that the appeal for annulment, which the State had indicated should be exhausted, did not constitute an adequate and effective remedy because its purpose was merely to contest contraventions of the law and not irregularities in the investigation. 30 28. In this regard, the State indicated that, to contest the judgment of the Appellate Court of November 10, 2003, dismissing the case 31 (infra para. 93), the appeal for annulment should have been filed, or even the appeal for review, 32 both regulated by domestic law. The State asserted that, owing to the failure to file the remedy, the said judgment became final with the effects of res judicata. However, during the hearing of the case before the Court, contrary to its previous arguments, the State indicated that the said appeal for annulment could still be filed owing to the failure to notify the judgment to the parties and because the Appellate Court should deliver a conviction or an acquittal, but never decide the dismissal of a case (infra para. 211). 27 Article 460 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that “the appeal for annulment may be based on contraventions of the law, owing to failure to apply the law, undue application of the law, or erroneous interpretation of the law. When the legal precept that it is argued has been contravened constitutes a procedural error, the remedy shall only be admissible if the interested party has requested its rectification opportunely, except in cases of infringements of constitutional guarantees or those that have occurred after the deliberations have concluded.” 28 Cf. Admissibility Report No. 22/09. Petition 908/04, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, Venezuela, March 20, 2009, paras. 44 to 53 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folios 2310 to 2312). 29 Admissibility Report No. 22/09. Petition 908/04, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, Venezuela, March 20, 2009, para. 44 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folio 2310). 30 The Commission indicated in its Admissibility Report in relation to Igmar Landaeta that “46. As regulated under Venezuelan law, the purpose of the special appeal remedy [for annulment] mentioned by the State in its argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted is to challenge violations of the law by judges for failure to apply the law, applying it incorrectly, or for erroneous interpretation. […]. 47. […] Furthermore, the Commission has pointed out that, when the petitioners argue that there have been irregularities throughout the different stages of the proceedings, in principle they do not have to exhaust an extraordinary remedy, since such remedies are not designed to correct alleged irregularities during the investigation or indictment phase of criminal proceedings. 48. As noted above, the petitioners argued that there had been a series of irregularities and omissions during the investigative phase of criminal proceedings. In particular, the petitioners submitted arguments aimed at discrediting the investigations conducted by the respective authorities, which, they claimed, were not designed to elicit comprehensive insight into what had happened, taking all possible factors into consideration. For instance, the Commission notes that there were no inquiries into a possible connection between the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta and that of his brother Eduardo José murdered a few weeks later, allegedly by police officers of the state of Aragua, like Igmar. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the appeal remedy was not the appropriate remedy for addressing the irregularities alleged by the petitioners.” Cf. Admissibility Report No. 22/09. Petition 908/04, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, Venezuela, March 20, 2009 (file of the procedure before the Commission, folio 2311). 31 Cf. Judgment of the Incidental Chamber of the Appellate Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the state Aragua of November 10, 2003 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9830 to 9842). 32 Article 470 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that “[r]eview of the final judgment shall be admissible always, and in favor of the accused, in the following cases: 1. When, owing to conflicting judgments, two or more persons have been convicted of the same offense, which could only have been committed by one person; 2. When the judgment found proved the murder of a person whose existence after the time of his presumed death has been fully proved; 3. When the evidence on which the conviction was based is found to have been false; 4. When, following the guilty verdict, an act occurs or is discovered, or a document emerges that was unknown during the proceedings, which makes it evident that the act did not exist or that the accused did not commit it; 5. When the guilty verdict was delivered as a result of malfeasance or corruption as regards one or more of the judges who delivered it, the existence of which has been declared in a final judgment, and 6. When a criminal law is enacted that eliminates the criminal nature of the act or reduces the established punishment. 10