B.3.3.3. There has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies (article 46(2)(c) 114. The representatives argued that the delay in deciding the requests for annulment was unwarranted under domestic and international law (supra para. 34). 115. Even though the Court has previously decided that requests for annulment were not appropriate remedies, it is pertinent to analyze the exception of “unwarranted delay,” because the Commission accepted the exhaustion of domestic remedies based on this exception. In fact, in its Admissibility Report, the Inter-American Commission considered that this exception was admissible in light of the following considerations: 140 87. In this respect, the Commission observes that while the motion for nullity filed on November 8, 2005, could have been resolved without the presence of Allan Brewer Carías, the physical absence of the accused in fact impeded the holding of the preliminary hearing and other procedural acts related to his trial, as a result, the Commission does not have elements to attribute to the State an unwarranted delay in the decision regarding the criminal proceedings as a whole. The Commission notes, however, that the lack of resolution of the request for annulment is an indication of delay attributable to the State with regard to the resolution of the claims concerning due process which were included in the same appeal. 88. As for the application of the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention, the petitioners allege that Allan Brewer Carías has been impeded from using the remedies that should be available to the defense in a criminal proceeding, which were arbitrarily disregarded by the Public Prosecution Service and by the judicial system. The petitioners allege that Allan Brewer Carías has not been allowed to have access to domestic remedies considering that there has apparently been a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence in his case in light of statements by members of the Judiciary on the alleged guilt of the accused; that the provisional status of prosecutors and judges involved in the case may have affected their independence and impartiality. In addition, they refer to the impairment of due process guarantees related to the exercise of the defense at trial, such as the right to examine and offer witnesses as well as to have access to the file in conditions that make it possible to prepare the defense of the accused satisfactorily. They argue that these alleged violations of access to judicial remedies with due guarantees were questioned before the courts by means of the motion for nullity filed on November 8, 2005, which has not been resolved. 89. The Commission notes that the claims mentioned in the preceding paragraph were filed in the domestic courts together with the request for annulment and, consequently, must be analyzed in that context and the analysis supra in accordance with Article 46(2)(c). As it has been already pointed out with regard to that appeal, there has been a delay in issuing a decision, and the Commission considers that the lapse of more than three years in deciding this appeal is a factor that falls within the framework of the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies due to an unwarranted delay (bold and underlining added). In this case, the parties disagree as to whether the exception contained in Article 46(2)(c) is applicable; in other words, whether there has been an unwarranted delay. This disagreement has also focused on determining whether the request for annulment can only be decided during the preliminary hearing in the presence of Mr. Brewer Carías, or whether the request can be decided without his presence, independently of the preliminary hearing. 116. 117. In order to decide whether the acceptance of this exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies signified a serious error that violated the State’s right of defense, the 140 Admissibility report No. 97/09, Petition 84-07, Allan R. Brewer Carías, Venezuela, September 8, 2009 (file of annexes to the report, appendix, tome IV, folios 3628 and 3629). 38