2.2 Exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies 65. We will now analyze each of the exceptions established in the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 2.2.a The domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated (Art. 46(2)(a) of the American Convention) 66. As previously indicated, the representatives argued that a structural problem exists which affects the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and is summarized by the subjection of the Judicial Branch to the interests of the Executive Branch. 67. Meanwhile, the Inter-American Commission has insisted that “the problem described in this case is structural in nature and responds to a de facto situation of the judiciary that goes far beyond the abstract regulation of criminal proceedings.” 68. However, in the Judgment, it has been considered that the direct application of the exception contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention cannot be derived from an alleged structural context of the provisional nature of the judiciary, because this would mean that, based on an argument of a general nature regarding the lack of independence or impartiality of the judiciary, it would not be necessary to comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. 69. First, it is important to indicate that, in the chapter on the “Determination of pertinent facts,” the Judgment totally omits the issue of the provisional status of prosecutors and judges in Venezuela, even though this is a key element and one that has been especially debated by the parties; moreover, there is abundant material in the case file on specific facts relating to this issue. 50 Second, there can be no doubt that this problem of the provisional status of judges and prosecutors in that country – which the Court has already examined in the cases of Apitz Barbera et al., 51 Reverón Trujillo 52 and Chocrón Chocrón 53 against Venezuela – is closely related to the issue of the judicial remedies in the domestic jurisdiction. The Court has even determined a series of proven facts in these cases in relation to the main aspects of the judicial restructuring process in Venezuela. Thus, it would have been appropriate for the Court to combine the examination of the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies with an analysis of the arguments on merits in this case, as it has on other occasions. 70. Regarding this situation, and specifically in relation to Venezuela, the Inter-American 50 In the three previous cases in the Court’s history where it did not examine the merits of the case (see supra footnote 1 of this opinion), there is no description or specific determination of the facts. Curiously, this is the first case in which, admitting the preliminary objection, a heading is included in the Judgment entitled “Determination of the pertinent facts to decide the preliminary objection on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies,” entirely omitting the facts relating to the situation of the provisional status of prosecutors and judges. 51 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. 52 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. 53 Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227. 16