89. The Commission notes that the claims mentioned in the preceding paragraph were filed in domestic court together with the appeal for annulment and, consequently, must be analyzed in that context and the analysis supra in accordance with Article 46(2)(c). As it has been already pointed out with regard to that appeal, there has been a delay in issuing a decision, and the Commission considers that the lapse of more than three years in the resolution of this appeal is a factor that falls within the framework of the exception to exhaustion of domestic remedies due to an unwarranted delay. 90. The petitioners consider that in cases of political persecution, international law is on the side of one who seeks protection from the State in question. It indicates that this is the ultimate basis of asylum and refuge as legal institutions, and they cite the principle ofnon-refoulement. The Commission understands, however, that Allan Brewer Carías is not abroad with refugee status. The Commission considers that an eventual analysis of the allegations of political persecution or of the factors that would have affected his right to due process should be done during the stage on the merits. 91. As for the petitioner’s argument regarding the illusory nature of domestic remedies due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Judiciary, the petitioners base their argument on the election of the Supreme Court of Justice not having been done in keeping with the Constitution; that the reform of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2002 established the election of judges by simple majority, and that those justices who do not follow the government line have been removed or “retired.” The State considers that the petitioners’ argument that because some of the remedies they resorted to proved unsuccessful all domestic remedies must be considered exhausted is inadmissible, and rejects the characterization of the alleged facts presented by the petitioners with regard to the independence of the Judiciary. 92. While the IAHCR has stated on several occasions its concern over factors that may affect the impartiality and independence of some public servants working in the Public Ministry and the Judiciary in Venezuela, the nature of a contentious procedure requires that the petitioners present concrete arguments on the impact on the judicial process related to the claim.60 Generic mentions of the context are not sufficient per se to justify the invocation of that objection. 93. As indicated supra the State it is not within the purview of the IACHR to make a determination of guilt or innocence regarding an accused person in a criminal proceeding. But, it is the responsibility of the Commission to analyze if the guarantees of due process which are protected by the Convention have been violated and –in terms of determining the admissibility of the petition—whether domestic remedies have been exhausted or if the exception to the requirement should apply in light of the characteristics of the claim. In the present case, the petitioners allege that factors such as the provisional nature of the judges and prosecutors involved in the case, has made them subject to removal without proceeding, a situation that affects the guarantees of impartiality and independence. 94. Specifically, the petitioners allege that by request of the Sixth Prosecutor, the Twenty-fifth Court of Control issued the order barring Allan Brewer Carías from leaving the country. That order was appealed to the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeals. On January 31, 2005, the Chamber of Appeals revoked the order barring Brewer Carias from leaving the country. On February 3, 2005, the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice suspended the judges of the Court of Appeals who voted for the nullity of the decision appealed, as well as Temporary Judge Josefina Gómez Sosa, for not having stated sufficient grounds to support the order prohibiting exit from the country. Judge Gómez Sosa was replaced by Judge of Control Manuel Bognanno, also temporary. The petitioners allege that Judge Bognanno was suspended from office on June 29, 2005, after notifying the Superior Prosecutor on June 27, 2005, of alleged irregularities in the investigation conducted by the Sixth Prosecutor.61 In other words, the IACHR, Report No. 96/06 Admissibility (Capote, Trujillo et al.), Venezuela, para. 69. In the session on June 29, 2005, the Judicial Commission designated José Alonso Dugarte Ramos as the Provisional Judge in replacement of Manuel Antonio Bognanno Palmares in the Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit – Caracas Metropolitan Area. On June 27, 2005, the suspended provisional judge wrote to the Public Ministry's Superior Prosecutor 60 61 20