contends that it was Allan Brewer Carías who provoked the activation of the legal and constitutional mechanisms on which the order of preventive detention was based. 73. With regard to the petitioners’ allegation that international law was violated, (see supra III A) the State argues that international human rights law is supplementary and ancillary and that it does not substitute the State’s own actions. The State contends that the petitioners have the obligation to (i) identify the domestic law violated, in this case the COPP and/or the Constitution; (ii) to explain the violation of the domestic law based on its own case file, the jurisprudence and interpretation in the domestic legal system, and without this entailing a presentation of arguments on the merits of the case; and, last, (iii) to translate the domestic law violated into the corresponding international law. 74. Lastly, the State points out that the by being in contempt of court Allan Brewer Carías missed the opportunity to be included under the provisions of the Decree with Rank, Value and Force of Special Law of Amnesty issued on December 31, 2007, by President Hugo Chavez Frías, in exercise of his constitutional powers. The State points out that the decree applied to all persons who: […] are at odds with the established order, are within the law and have submitted to criminal proceedings for the following crimes: A) Drafting the decree of the de facto government of April 12, 2002. B) Signing the decree of the de facto government of April 12, 2002 C)The violent take-over of the state government of the State of Mérida on April 12, 2002 D) The illegal deprivation of liberty of citizen Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, Minister of the Interior and Justice, on April 12, 2002 E) Instigating to Commit a Crime and Military Disobedience until December 2, 2007 [...]. 75. Therefore, the State requests that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible. 3. Allegations regarding the admissibility of the petition 76. The State argues that the petitioners’ claim violates the principle that the Inter-American Human Rights System supplements domestic legislation when they allege a political persecution that doesn’t exist. The State points out that the Commission has maintained that the purpose of the admissibility stage is not to verify if an accused person is guilty or innocent, but to confirm whether the domestic remedies have been exhausted or not. Therefore, the State argues that the petitioners should not allege defenses that should be taken up in Venezuelan Courts and that have nothing to do with the competence of the IACHR to examine the case. The State alleges that arguments regarding the individuals responsible for drafting the decree in question, such as the claim that Allan Brewer Carías was “not even remotely responsible for drafting the decree of April 12th”, or the allegation regarding the “baseless indictment of Dr. Brewer Carias, by written communication dated January 27, 2005 […]", assume that the Commission will determine whether the indictment is groundless or not when this falls within the jurisdiction of the Venezuelan courts. The State argues that the arguments of fact and of law presented by the petitioners must be resolved by the courts of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and that, to that end, Allan Brewer Carías must come into compliance with the Venezuelan courts. 77. The State contends that the petitioners have not exhausted the domestic remedies in light that the criminal proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías is in the intermediate stage due to the fact that he fled the country and that in Venezuela trial in absentia does not exist. As a result, the State argues, the proceedings have not reached the trial stage; the oral and public hearing has not been held; the admission of evidence has not begun; and no lower court judgment has been issued that would allow the filing of an appeal of the proceedings, of an appeal of final judgment, of annulment, of cassation, of criminal review, of amparo; and, finally, a constitutional review by the Constitutional Chamber of the Republic of Venezuela. 17