2.2.b The party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them (Art. 46(2)(b) of the American Convention) 76. In this regard, in the Judgment it has been considered that the procedural stage – namely, “the early stage” – at which this case is currently prevents reaching a prima facie conclusion with regard to the impact of the provisional status of the judiciary on the guarantee of judicial independence in order to establish the admissibility of an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies based on Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention. The majority opinion supports this consideration by the fact that not even a first instance decision exists based on which it would be possible to assess the real impact that the provisional status of the judges has had on the proceedings. 77. Meanwhile, the representatives have argued that, “by arbitrarily and illegally conditioning the processing of the request for annulment to the appearance of the presumed victim, based on a court order contrary to the Convention, Mr. Brewer Carías was prevented from having access to the domestic remedies, to which was added “a well-founded fear” that the exercise of the remedies would subject him to an increase in the persecution against him. In addition, they have indicated “that the supervisory judges who ruled in favor of the defense, or who sought to rectify violations of due process allegedly committed during the investigative stage were replaced.” 78. The Commission also observed, in response to the allegations of the petitioners, that the State had not indicated the appropriate remedies to question the appointment or removal of judges. It indicated that the remedies usually available to the defense, such as recusal, are not appropriate to challenge the provisional status of judges assigned to the proceedings or their removal owing to their actions. The Commission found that the removal of several provisional judges in this case, following the adoption of decisions regarding the presumed victim’s situation, may have affected his access to domestic remedies and, therefore, this aspect of the claim should be exempt from the requirement being analyzed. 79. We have already referred to the contextual issue of the provisional status of judges in Venezuela (see supra paras. 66 to 74 of this opinion); however, it should be pointed out that although the majority opinion considers that, based on the procedural stage that the domestic proceedings are at, it is not possible to measure the impact that this has had on the proceedings, the case file contains elements that could, if they were evaluated when examining the merits, lead us to a different conclusion. 80. First, the Inter-American Court could have examined whether the impact of the provisional status of prosecutors and judges in a specific case represents, in itself, a violation of the right to an independent and impartial judge or court, established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, from the perspective of the accused. In this specific case, it is noted that the provisional status of the judges and prosecutors who have been involved in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías has, indeed, had an impact. As the Judgment itself mentions, “at least four provisional prosecutors investigated the facts related to the events of April 11, 12 and 13, 2002, including those concerning the drafting of the “Carmona Decree.” Initially, provisional prosecutor José Benigno Rojas was in charge of the investigation; he was then substituted by provisional prosecutor Danilo Anderson and, on August 28, 2002, the investigation was taken over by Luisa Ortega Díaz as substitute for the Sixth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service at the National Level.” 65 In 2007, Ms. Ortega Díaz became Prosecutor General, but, since the previous year (2006) 65 Para. 46 of the Judgment. 19