7 There is no evidence in the court records showing that the remedies mentioned supra (or some other recourse that may exist) were filed or whether they were effective within the domestic courts; no reason was given about why such remedies were not filed, in accordance with the requirement stipulated in Article 46(2)(a), (b), (c) of the Convention; as a result, the Commission, in my opinion, had to examine the reasonings about the exhaustion of the domestic remedies and come to the conclusion that the petition filed before it should be declared to be inadmissible. This Court has ruled upon, on several occassions, on the procedural opportunity to determine about a ground of inadmissibility as the one put forward by the State and the Court has pointed out it may decide on the objection prior to the judgment on the merits8 or as a preliminary phase, in the judgment that finally settles the controversy.9 In the case at hand, the petitioners alleged to have exhausted the domestic remedies by means of complaints filed before the Attorney General’s Office and some proceedings instituted before the criminal courts, which, I insist, are not consistent with the legal claims lodged before this Court. 10 In fact, the criminal court exercising criminal jurisdiction in Venezuela (and not acting as constitutional court) within the sphere of its authorities, could not rule upon the violation of freedom of expression (as has been one of the decisions of this Court) or order measures necessary to avoid acts of State’s agents and private individuals tending to hamper the seeking, reception and dissemination of information by mass media and associated personnel; or require measures necessary to prevent that acts of State’s agents or private individuals hinder the seeking, reception and dissemination of information or guarantee the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and thought, particularly, the exercise of the profession of the petitioners. The majority has an opinion different to what I put forward herein as has been read from the operative paragraphs of the judgment and paragraph 300 thereof. These claims, as we saw, are protected by other remedies that were not exhausted. The foregoing shows sufficient reasons to dissent from the majority opinion. 1.2 On the procedural moment to raise the objection One of the reasons given by the majority of the judges to dismiss the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was that the State failed to point out the remedies that remained to be exhausted by the alleged victims and that it did not 8 ; Cf. Judgment in favor of a preliminary decision different from the decision on the merits. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. 9 Cf. Judgment in favor of joining the decision of exhaustion of remedies to the merits of the case: Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. 10 From another point of view, in consideration of the suitability of the criminal proceedings, consult the concurring opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez in the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Kimel, of May 2, 2008.