corresponding to the intermediate stage established in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; also, the completion of the trial stage, if applicable, as well as [the existence of] effective remedies, [such as] the appeal against decisions, against final judgments, for reconsideration, of cassation, [and] for review” 31 (underlining added). 52. In the Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela — which is cited in the Judgment 32 — the Court indicated that “requests filed by the defense, such as applications for a declaration of nullity based on failure to comply with legal forms and conditions, or the annulment of an expertise offered by the Public Prosecution Service, cannot signify that domestic remedies have been exhausted” 33 and “the appropriate remedy in this regard was the appeal against the judgment delivered at the conclusion of the trial, without prejudice to the possibility of filing an objection owing to the excessive duration of the proceedings.” First, the precedent created in the Case of Díaz Peña represented an isolated precedent that has not been used subsequently; second, contrary to the said precedent where an application for amparo had been filed and, therefore, it was found that the appeal had exhausted the domestic remedies, in the case sub judice, owing to the procedural stage of the criminal proceedings against Allan Brewer Carías, the requests for annulment that were filed were those that had to be exhausted in order to rectify the violations that had occurred during the preliminary investigation stage. Evidently, since the requests for annulment were not processed and, especially as no decision was taken on them, it was not possible to accede to the remedies established by Venezuelan law for the intermediate stage and during the oral trial. 53. Furthermore, it should not be ignored that the State did not, in fact, contest the effectiveness of the applications for a declaration of nullity, since it merely indicated that “[t]he remedies corresponding to the intermediate stage established in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; also, the exhaustion of the trial stage, if applicable, as well as [the existence of] effective remedies, [such as] the appeals against decisions, against final judgments, for reconsideration, for cassation, [and] for review.” 34 In other words, regarding the requests for annulment that were filed, the State did not indicate that they were not appropriate and effective remedies that should be exhausted, but rather, to the contrary, merely indicated the pending remedies that should be exhausted at later stages. 54. As we have mentioned – see supra paras. 40 to 44 of this opinion – we consider that the two requests for annulment filed by the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías were clearly the appropriate, adequate and effective remedies that had to be exhausted at the procedural stage that the criminal proceedings had reached at that time, because their purpose was to remedy the fundamental rights that had been violated during the investigation stage. Therefore, as neither of the two requests for annulment filed in 2005 have even been processed, it is evident, in our opinion, that from the perspective of international law the applicable exception in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention has been constituted. 55. In this regard, the case law of the Inter-American Court has been consistent when analyzing the application of the exceptions established in Article 42(6) of the Convention. In some cases, it has rejected the preliminary objection or has determined that questions relating to the exhaustion and effectiveness of the applicable domestic remedies must be 31 Para. 97 of the Judgment. 32 Para. 89 of the Judgment. 33 Cf. Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012, Series C No. 244, para. 90 and 124. 34 Para. 17 of the Judgment. 12