filed two requests for the absolute nullity of the proceedings. The first, on October 4, 2005 21 — at the “preparatory stage” — was not even processed and, even less, decided. The second request for annulment, dated November 8, 2005, 22 filed in response to the prosecutor’s indictment (the moment at which the “intermediate stage” commences) contested, among other matters, the fact that the first request for annulment had not been processed and decided. This second request for annulment was not processed or decided either, as can be seen from the case file. 23 41. Thus it is evident that these requests for annulment, which, at that procedural stage, represented the appropriate and effective remedy in light of the Inter-American Court’s consistent case law, were neither processed nor decided. All things considered, suggesting that it was necessary to wait until the preliminary hearing and the whole of the proceedings had been held before contesting the first instance judgment constitutes an unwarranted delay from the point of view of international law, if it is taken into account that more than seven years have passed. 42. As the representatives indicated — an opinion that we share — the request for annulment represents, by its nature, “the remedy of amparo in criminal procedural matters”; therefore “if a decision on the remedy of amparo has to await the preliminary hearing, which can be delayed indefinitely, […] the remedy could not be considered simple and prompt.” In this regard, as can be seen in the case file, a judgment of the Venezuelan Constitutional Chamber of February 6, 2003, indicates that: 24 [… T]he plaintiff had a pre-existing procedural measures, which was just as, or more, appropriate, expedite, brief and simple as the application for amparo, which was the request for a declaration of nullity of the decision against which he has exercised the present protective action pursuant to article 212 of the said Code; a claim that must be decided, even as a mere matter of law, by a ruling that must be issued within the threeday period established in article 194 (now 177) of the procedural code. It is worth noting that, in temporal terms, this request for a declaration of absolute nullity should have been substantiated and decided within a time frame that is ostensibly less than the one established by law in relation to the amparo procedure (underlining added). 43. In other words, the application for a declaration of the absolute nullity of all the proceedings in cases of violation of due process that involve fundamental rights, as in the case of amparo in criminal matters, must, in accordance with Article 25 of the American Convention, be an effective, simple and prompt remedy before the competent judges or courts, that provides protection against acts that violate the fundamental rights recognized by the Constitution, the law or the Convention. 44. Based on the foregoing considerations, it is clear, in our opinion, that the requests for annulment filed by Mr. Brewer’s representatives in the domestic criminal proceedings 21 The appeal for a declaration of nullity of all the investigation proceedings was signed on October 4, 2005, and, according to the information in the case file, “filed yesterday, October 6, before the 25th Supervisory Judge”; it is stamped “received” on October 7 that year. Cf. File of annexes to the answering brief of the State, folio 1407. 22 According to the case file, the second appeal for annulment was signed on November 8, 2005, and it was decided “to open a new exhibit to be entitled Thirtieth (30th) EXHIBIT” of “Two hundred and seventy-two (272) folios, including this decision,” by a ruling of the Twenty-fifth First Instance Supervisory Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. Cf. file of annexes to the State’s answering brief, folio 14675. 23 The State provided the Inter-American Court with a copy of the entire case file of the domestic criminal proceedings. It can be seen that there is no judicial decision or order that even admits for processing the briefs on the absolute nullity of the proceedings filed by the representatives of the presumed victims. 24 Transcript of the relevant part in para. 125 of the Judgment. 9