the requirement of simplicity is not fulfilled “because it is conditioned to a more complex procedure, such as the preliminary hearing of the criminal proceedings, […] in which different issues of a diverse nature must be decided,” so that “it is neither reasonable nor proportionate for the purpose of that protection.” They also argued that the request for annulment is not a prompt remedy, concluding that the time that has passed without the said hearing being held and, consequently, a decision being taken on the remedy filed, is “sufficient to invoke an unwarranted delay in deciding the remedy filed.” They stated that the appeal for a declaration of nullity would not be effective either, because “it was subject to the illegitimate condition that Mr. Brewer Carías, a victim of political persecution, prosecuted for a political offense, give himself up to those who are persecuting him.” 33. Furthermore they argued that, in the specific case, all the conditions had been met for the “ineffective remedy” developed in the Court’s case law, namely: (i) the remedy was “illusory” owing to “the general conditions in the country” described in their brief relating to the presumed lack of independence and impartiality of the judicial and prosecution authorities and owing to “the particular circumstances of this case,” which were the alleged “vicious persecution of all the branches of the public powers against the [presumed] victim”; (ii) the “uselessness” of the remedies owing to the alleged lack of independence of the judicial authorities to decide with impartiality,” and (iii) the “creation of a context of denial of justice as a result of the unwarranted delay in the decision on nullity.” 34. In addition, and with regard to the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention, they argued that: (i) the context of the alleged structural situation of the provisional status of judges and prosecutors in Venezuela, as well as “[t]he reiterated and persistent violation of the right to an independent and impartial judge in the proceedings against [Mr.] Brewer Carías, which the State has not denied, prove that the [presumed] victim was denied due process of law, which constitutes the first exception to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies before having recourse to the international protection of human rights (Art. 46(2)(a) [of the Convention])”; (ii) “[t]he persistent and arbitrary refusal of the Public Prosecution Service and of the different judges who have heard the criminal case instituted against [Mr.] Brewer Carías to admit and to process the evidence and remedies requested by the [presumed] victim’s lawyers, in order to defend him adequately in the terms of Article 8 of the Convention, constitutes the second exception to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies before having recourse to the international protection of human rights (Art. 46(2)(b) [of the Convention])”, and (iii) “[t]he circumstance that the request for the annulment of all the proceedings, filed on November 8, 2005, has not been decided to date constitutes the unwarranted delay and, thus, the third exception to the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies before having recourse to the international protection of human rights (Art. 46(2)(c)” of the Convention. 35. The Court will now indicate the facts it considers relevant in order to take a decision on the objection of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. It will describe these facts in the following order: (1) background to the short-lived overthrow of the President of the Republic in April 2002 and the reactions to that event, and (2) the criminal proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías. B.2. Determination of the pertinent facts to decide the preliminary objection on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.2.1. Background 13