The diverse postponements of the said hearing have not been based on the absence of the abovementioned accused who is a fugitive from justice; to the contrary, they are the result of the innumerable requests for delays by the defense counsel themselves.” B.3. Considerations of the Court 76. Based on arguments presented by the parties and the Commission, the Court finds it necessary to analyze: (a) whether the objection concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies was presented at the proper procedural stage; (b) whether the appropriate and effective remedies were filed to redress the alleged violation of rights, and (c) whether the exceptions to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies are admissible. B.3.1. Presentation of the objection at the proper procedural stage 77. This Court has affirmed consistently that an objection to the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies must be filed at the proper procedural stage; 95 that is, during the admissibility stage before the Commission. 96 Therefore, first, the State should have defined clearly before the Commission, during the admissibility stage of this case, the remedies that, in its opinion, had not been exhausted. Furthermore, the arguments substantiating the preliminary objection filed by the State before the Commission during the admissibility stage must coincide with those adduced before the Court. 97 78. In this regard, the Court notes that, in the proceedings before the Commission, the State, in its brief of August 25, 2009, answering the petition, indicated that “[t]he petitioners acknowledge[d] that they ha[d] not exhausted the domestic remedies [and that] it was evident that the petition [was] inadmissible.” 98 79. In this brief, the State alleged that the argument that Mr. Brewer Carías could, “in no way be the author of the April 12 decree,” and the allegation of the “unfounded accusation filed against [Mr.] Brewer Carías, in a brief of January 27, 2005,” suppose that the Commission should decide whether or not the accusation was unfounded, when this was incumbent on the Venezuelan courts. The State argued that the factual and legal arguments presented by the petitioners should be decided by the courts of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and that, to this end, Mr. Brewer Carías should resolve his situation before the Venezuelan courts. 80. Furthermore, in this brief, the State argued that the petitioners had not exhausted the domestic remedies since the criminal proceedings being held against Mr. Brewer Carías remained at an intermediate stage because he had left Venezuela and could not be tried in absentia. On that occasion, it argued that, consequently, the proceedings had not reached the trial stage, that “the oral and public hearing had not been held; the admission of 95 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 14. 96 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, paras. 84 and 85, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 14. 97 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012 Series C No. 246, para. 29. 98 The State’s brief of August 31, 2009, before the Commission (annexes to the brief with observations of the presumed victim’s representatives on the preliminary objection filed by the State, tome 1, folio 21873). 26