9 case. This Tribunal is competent, therefore, to decide whether there has been a violation of any of the rights and liberties enshrined in the American Convention and to protect, by means of the appropriate measures, the consequences that derive from said situation; however, it is also competent to try the prerequisites on which the possibility to hear a case is based and to verify the compliance with the procedural rule concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention15. I believe that any decision delivered by this Court must be subsidiary to the system of justice of each State and the Court may only issue a ruling prior to a State’s decision, if the ineffectiveness of the remedies was proven; which did not happen in the case at hand, consistent with the claims made before this Court, considering that such remedies were not lodged. I hereby present my dissenting opinion for considering that there must be harmony among the Convention, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and of the Court and the domestic set of rules of the defendant State, which I have tried, in my capacity as judge ad hoc, to bring to the attention of the Court’s Judges in order for them to closely learn about the law enforced in the State under question and the practice developed by it, together with its standards, in order to bring it in line with the precepts of the American Convention. 2) Substantive reasons: Even when technically it would not be necessary to carry out an analysis regarding the merits of the case at hand, I think it is appropriate to analyze them inasmuch as by dismissing the preliminary objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court pointed out: “Therefore, the Court verifies that the State did not raise such preliminary objection until after the adoption of the Report on Admissibility by the Commission, by means of a brief filed during the stage on the merits. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State failed to raise such objection at the appropriate procedural moment; therefore, the Court rejects the forth preliminary objection raised by the State. The Court cannot consider the arguments put forward by the State in the final written allegations regarding this objection, which do not complement those initially offered, for being untimely presented. With respect the rest of the arguments exposed by the State and the representatives, only those that are closely related to the merits of the case, shall be considered, where appropriate, in the following chapters”. It spring from the foregoing that according to the Court, the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was related to the merits; therefore, the Court analyzed it upon examining the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment and freedom of thought and expression. Hence, even though in the operative paragraph of the judgment, the Court did not declare that the Venezuelan State failed to comply with the obligation established in article 8 16 of 15 See Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. 93, para. 27; Case of Goiburú et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 82, para. 71; Case of Goiburú et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 81, para. 71; and Case of Hilaire. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. 80, para. 80. 16 Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial)