84. In the matter under consideration, the State alleges that the criminal proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías is in the intermediate stage due to the fact that Allan Brewer Carías fled the country and that in Venezuela there is no trial in absentia. The State further explains that because of that situation, the proceeding has not reached the trial stage, the oral and public hearing has not taken place, the admission of evidence has not begun, there has been no lower court judgment issued that would allow for the filing of an appeal to the proceedings, an appeal to final judgment, an appeal for annulment, for cassation, a criminal review, an amparo petition, and finally, a constitutional review by the Constitutional Chamber of the Republic of Venezuela. 85. For their part, the petitioners allege that their claim is admissible by application of the three exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement cited above. First, they allege that the process has been at a standstill since the issuance of the arrest warrant for Allan Brewer Carías in June 2006, and that no preliminary hearing has been held, which constitutes unwarranted delay. They also allege unwarranted delay in resolving the motion for nullity filed on November 8, 2005. Second, they allege that the present case fits within the framework of a State policy in which Allan Brewer Carías not only has been condemned beforehand, but by which he is also impeded from using the remedies normally available for his defense within the criminal procedure, which have been arbitrarily not recognized by the Public Ministry and by the judicial system. Finally, they allege that the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction are illusory considering that the Judiciary lacks independence and impartiality, and that in general there is a situation of denial of justice. 86. As regards the application of the exception to the prior exhaustion requirement provided for at Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention for the alleged unwarranted delay in the proceeding, the Commission notes that, as the information submitted by the parts indicates, the investigation of the events of April 12, 2002, began in August 2002, when the Special Commission issued its report and urged the Citizens Power to investigate them. The indictment of Allan Brewer Carías was handed down on January 27, 2005, and that he participated in the process, physically present, until September 28, 2005, when he travelled abroad, where he remains till the day of approval of this report. The accusation against Allan Brewer Carías was formalized on October 21, 2005, the date on which the process went to the intermediate stage, and on June 15, 2006, an arrest warrant was issued for him, which it has not been possible to enforce given his stay abroad. 87. In this respect, the Commission observes that while the motion for nullity filed on November 8, 2005, could have been resolved without the presence of Allan Brewer Carías, the physical absence of the accused in fact impeded the holding of the preliminary hearing and other procedural acts related to his trial, as a result, the Commission does not have elements to attribute to the State an unwarranted delay in the decision regarding the criminal proceedings as a whole. The Commission notes, however, that the lack of resolution of the appeal for annulment is an indication of delay attributable to the State with regard to the resolution of the claims concerning due process which were included in the same appeal. 88. As for the application of the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for at Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention, the petitioners allege that Allan Brewer Carías has been impeded from using the remedies that should be available to the defense in a criminal proceeding, which were arbitrarily unrecognized by the Public Ministry and by the judicial system. The petitioners allege that Allan Brewer Carías has not been allowed to have access to domestic remedies considering that there has apparently been a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence in his case in light of statements by members of the Judiciary on the alleged guilt of the accused; that the provisional status of prosecutors and judges involved in the case may have affected their independence and impartiality. In addition, they refer to the impairment of due process guarantees related to the exercise of the defense at trial, such as the right to interrogate and offer witnesses as well as to have access to the file in conditions that make it possible to duly prepare the defense of the accused. They argue that these alleged violations of access to judicial remedies with due guarantees were questioned before the courts by means of the motion for nullity filed on November 8, 2005, which has not been resolved. 19