10 . State indicated that the alleged victims did not file any action within the domestic legal system. 35. In this regard, the representatives held that the alleged violations included in the Commission’s application were denounced in a timely manner and informed of to the Venezuelan Public Prosecutors’ Office. The fact that the State admitted that the complaints are being processed implies that it accepts that the case is admissible, since six years have gone by since the first facts denounced had occurred. Likewise, they argued that the exception to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies of “unjustified delay” in deciding the mentioned remedies was present in this case, criterion that was adopted and applied in Admissibility Report No. 6/04 of the Inter-American Commission, where the argument that the alleged victims had not presented certain appeals for review was also dismissed. Additionally, they argued that the State’s lack of interest was aggravated since its own bodies closed on-going investigations, invoking only its own ineffectiveness to justify the defenselessness of the alleged victims within the domestic jurisdiction. They state that the Public Prosecutors’ Office is the only body in charge of public criminal actions in Venezuela and therefore it is responsible of carrying out all the necessary investigation actions and determining the authors of the criminal actions. 36. On its part, the Commission held that in its Admissibility Report No. 6/04 the matter of the exhaustion of the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction was duly clarified. It argued that in this report the Commission considered the applicability of the objection established in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention, in light of the elements present in the case file, and therefore a new discussion regarding this matter is inadmissible. The Commission mentioned that the State did not argue in its response to the application that this decision was based on erroneous information or that it was the result of a process in which the parties saw their equality or their right to a defense limited. The Commission considered that the content of the decisions on admissibility adopted pursuant with the rules established in the Convention and in the Rules of Procedures of the Commission should not have to be examined again before the Court. Finally, it mentioned that the arguments of the State regarding the effectiveness of the remedies would result impertinent under the concept of a preliminary objection, since any discussion on the unjustified delay and nonconformity of the domestic processes with the conventional obligations that correspond to the State is a matter that must be solved as part of the merits of the case. 37. The Court has developed guidelines to analyze an exception of non-compliance to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies.26 To this effect, it is necessary to analyze its formal and material assumptions, established in Article 46 and 47 of the American Convention and in the relevant statutory and regulatory stipulations of the bodies of the Inter-American System, which is helping, subsidiary and complementary to the protection that must be offered by the domestic law of the States Parties. With regard to the formal aspects, in the understanding that this objection is a defense available to the State, matters that are strictly procedural must be verified, namely: the procedural moment when the objection has been filed (if it was argued in a timely manner); the facts regarding which it was filed and if the interested party has mentioned that the admissibility decision was based on erroneous information or on some infringement of their right to a defense. Regarding the material assumptions, if they have been filed and the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction have been exhausted, pursuant with the principles of International Law generally acknowledged will be verified: specifically, if the State that files this objection has indicated the domestic remedies that have not yet been exhausted, and it will be necessary to prove that these remedies were available and adequate, ideal, and effective. Since this is a matter Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 51, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 64. 26