these amici curiae coincide in indicating different violations of Mr. Brewer’s rights under the Convention. 4. For greater clarity, we will divide this opinion into the following sections: (1) Subject of the dispute (paras. 5 to 32); (2) Dissent (paras. 33 to 119), and (3) Defense of the rule of law and the exercise of the legal profession (paras. 120-125). 1. Subject of the dispute 5. Regarding the preliminary objection filed by the State, as indicated in the Judgment, the main dispute between the parties arises from the different judicial actions filed by the representatives of the victims during the processing of the domestic criminal proceedings; in particular, the filing of two applications for a declaration of the absolute nullity of all the measures taken in the preliminary investigation and the proceedings instituted against the lawyer, Allan Brewer Carías. 6. This dispute stems from: (i) whether the requests for annulment were appropriate and effective remedies to exhaust the domestic jurisdiction; (ii) the procedural stage at which the requests for annulment should be decided; (iii) whether the presumed victim was prevented from exhausting the domestic remedies, and (iv) whether the delay in deciding the said remedies could be attributed to the presumed victim. 7. The first dispute focuses on whether the two requests for annulment filed by the representatives of Mr. Brewer Carías can be considered appropriate and effective remedies to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction. 8. Regarding the second dispute, the parties disagree as to whether the requests for annulment should have been decided by the judge in charge of the case within three days of their presentation or whether, to the contrary, this request should be examined and decided during the preliminary hearing. 9. As regards the third dispute, the disagreement relates to whether an impediment existed that prevented Allan Brewer Carías from exhausting the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction, a matter related to the provisional nature of judges in Venezuela, as well as to the impartiality and independence of that country’s judges and prosecutors. 10. In relation to the fourth dispute, the disagreement refers to whether the said requests for annulment should or could be decided even in the absence of the accused. There is consensus between the parties that, in order to hold the preliminary hearing, the accused must be present. Indeed, the representatives have indicated that “the preliminary hearing cannot be held in the absence of the accused, because it is part of the trial” and that “the presence of the accused is essential.” Based on the fact that the presence of Mr. Brewer Carías was necessary in order to hold the preliminary hearing, the parties disagree on whether the request for annulment that had been filed should be decided before the preliminary hearing or, to the contrary, at the end of that procedural stage. 1.1 Position of the State 11. In this regard, the State argued the existence of “[t]he remedies corresponding to the intermediate stage established in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; also, the exhaustion of the trial stage, if appropriate, as well as [the existence of] effective remedies, [such as] the appeals against decisions, against final judgments, for reconsideration, for cassation, [and] for review.” As possible remedies, the State indicated the remedies 2