2 Even when the undersigned believes that the criminal actions are not consistent or sufficient to satisfy the claims lodged before this Court as shall be analyzed infra, it is evident that the State has expressed before this Court its nonconformity with the fact that the Court tried the case instead of the domestic law. That springs from the brief of the answer to the application. In that sense, the judgment from which I dissent constitutes an anticipated ruling on matters that should be decided before courts of the Venezuelan State. Therefore, the application should have not been admitted at the beginning of this proceeding or prior to the decision on the merits of the instant case and, as a consequence, the case should be filed. The foregoing consideration is based on the following reasons: 1.1. On Consistency I understand that there are actions, petitions or remedies within the Venezuelan legislation that could still settle and satisfy, eventually, the same claims put forward before this international instance (contained in the application filed by the Commission or in its autonomous brief), to which the petitioners did not resort. It spring from the reading of the application filed by the Commission- and similarly, from the autonomous brief containing the requests 2-, that, in accordance with the claims made before this Court, it was requested to hold the Venezuelan State responsible for: 2 In fact, it was put forward in the autonomous brief of requests of the alleged victims that: “1) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in article 5.1 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in article 1.1 regarding: a. Mental integrity: …omissis... b. B. physical integrity .... omissis ... And that for these violations, the State is held internationally responsable. 2) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in article 13 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in article 1(1) and that it is held internationally responsible for such violation. 3) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to property enshrined in article 21 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in article 1(1) and that it is held internationally responsible for such violation. 4) The Venezuelan State has violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention of Human Rights, in relation to its obligation to respect and guarantee the human rights established in article 1(1) and that it is held internationally responsible for such violation. As a consequence, in light of the violations declared and after the adjudication of international responsibility of the Venezuelan State for such violations, the State is required to adopt the following measures of reparations for the victims: 1. To adopt the measures necessary to stop and prevent those actions of officials or government agents as well as of private individuals that affect the personal integrity, that impede the search, access, expression and broadcasting of information or that affect the right to property of the alleged victims in the case at hand; 2. To adopt the measures necessary to deal with, promptly and effective, in protection of the victims, the situations in which the officials and state agents or private individuals caused an impairment to the personal integrity, that impede the search, access, expression and broadcasting of information or that affect the right to property of the victims in this case. 3. To adopt the measures necessary to carry out a serious, thorough and complete investigation to determine the responsible of the violations mentioned in this proceeding and,