8 38. The petitioners allege that the preventive detention ought to apply as the exception and that the CEC allows the application of preventive detention on the sole basis of the existence of indicia of responsibility. In order to impugn the decision of preventive detention, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was denied and subsequently requested alternative precautionary measures, arguing their right to be tried while at liberty, which was denied. 39. After the judgment acquitting them, the petitioners continued with their claim for the alleged violation of their right to personal liberty with a suit for compensation for the alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty, which was initially declared to be well founded. This decision was appealed by the representative of the Public Prosecutor. The Court of Appeals determined that the said compensation was not appropriate. The petitioners also filed an appeal in cassation, which was declared inadmissible on June 13, 2002, by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in view of the fact that the decision was not subject to appeal during the said proceedings. The petitioners then lodged an appeal for reconsideration against this decision, which was declared groundless on July 30, 2003 by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, by reason of the fact the decision denying the appeal in cassation did not involve "an egregious error in interpreting the constitutional norms or a violation of the rights enshrined in the Constitution."7 40. The State, for its part, alleges that the petitioners may still "adequately file" a motion for the interpretation of a point of law; for their part, the petitioners consider that they have exhausted domestic remedies with the decision on the appeal for reconsideration. 41. The Commission observes that the motion for the interpretation of a point of law is provided for in Article 266.6 of the Political Constitution of Venezuela, and in Article 5 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the following terms: The following are powers of the Supreme Court of Justice: (...) [t]o take competence of motions for an interpretation of the content and application of legal texts, on the terms contemplated by the law.8 As the highest Court of the Republic, the Supreme Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction: [...] 52. [t]o take competence of motions for interpretation and decide upon the questions asked regarding the scope and content of legal texts, in the cases provided by law, provided that this competence does not imply a substitution of the mechanism, means or appeal provided by law to resolve the situation should it have arisen.9 42. In the Commission's view, the motion for the interpretation on a point of law, as conceived in the Venezuelan judicial process and as the State itself suggested (see supra III B), is a mechanism involving an interpretation in the abstract of the rule, and it is ineffective in terms of restoring the rights of individuals, and, therefore is not a suitable remedy to provide a solution to the situation set out by the petitioners. 43. The Commission considers that the petitioners attempted -at every instance-domestic remedies to question preventive detention, as well as the remedies through which they might claim compensation for the alleged arbitrary deprivation of liberty. In view of this, the Commission concludes that the requirement of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been 2004. 7 Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of July 30, 2003. 8 Article 266.6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 9 Article 5 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela, Official Gazette No. 37.942, May 20,