recognized by both the Inter-American Court14 and the European Court of Human Rights.15 22. Consequently, the Court reiterates that the interpretation it has accorded to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for more than 20 years is in keeping with international law. 23. In addition, the Court reiterates that, according to its case law16 and international case law,17 it is not incumbent on either the Court or the Commission to identify, ex officio, the domestic remedies that must be exhausted; but rather, the State must indicate at the appropriate time the domestic remedies that must be exhausted and their effectiveness. In this case, the State should have established clearly before the Commission, at the admissibility stage of the instant case, its arguments regarding the remedies that it considered had not been exhausted. In this regard, the Court reiterates that it does not fall to the international organs to rectify the lack of precision in the State’s arguments.18 24. The Court therefore rejects the preliminary objection. IV JURISDICTION 25. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. V EVIDENCE 26. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 49 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law regarding evidence and its assessment,19 the Court will 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 14, and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 16. 15 Cf. ECHR. Cases of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp Cases ("Vagrancy") v. Belgium, Judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, para. 55; ECHR. Case of Foti and others v. Italy, Judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, para. 46, and ECHR. Case of Bitiyeva and X v. Russia, Judgment of 21 June 2007, para. 90 and 91. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary objections. supra note 14, para. 88; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 37, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 13, para. 42. 17 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 12, which cites the following cases: ECHR, Case of Deweer v. Belgium, Judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, para. 26; ECHR, Case of Foti and others v. Italy, Judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, para. 48, and ECHR, Case of De Jong, Baljet and van den Brink v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, para. 36. 18 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, supra note 12, which cites the following case: ECHR, Case of Bozano v. France, Judgment of 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, para. 46. 19 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 35, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 19. 9