an objection based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to be timely, it must be raised in the early stages of the proceedings; failure to do so allows one to assume a tacit relinquishment by the State in question of such an objection. 3 Thirdly, according to the burden of proof applicable in such cases, a State alleging non-exhaustion must indicate the domestic remedies to be exhausted and provide evidence of their effectiveness.4 45. In its written reply to the petition, the Venezuelan State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. For their part, the petitioners argued that there had been unwarranted delay in the proceedings concerned. 46. The Commission will analyze the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies in the following order: i) with regard to the alleged extrajudicial executions of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto, and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez; and ii) with regard to the alleged subsequent harassment of and threats against the family members of the three men. a. With regard to the alleged extrajudicial executions of Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto, David Octavio Díaz Loreto, and Octavio Ignacio Díaz Álvarez 47. As the Commission has indicated, in order to analyze fulfillment of the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies, one must first determine the appropriate remedy to be exhausted according to the circumstances of the case, as understood to be that which could reinstate the infringed rights. 5 In cases of alleged arbitrary deprivation of the right to life, the appropriate remedy is an investigation and criminal trial initiated and prosecuted by the State to identify and punish those responsible.6 Sisters Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 135. 3 I/A Court H.R., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998. Series C No. 41, para. 56; and I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case. Preliminay Objections. Judgment of January 31, 1996. Series C No. 25, para 40. The Commission and the Court have established that “the first stages of the proceedings” should be understood to be “the stage of admissibility of the proceedings before the Commission, that is, before any consideration of the merits […]”. See, e.g., IACHR Report Nº 71/05, petition 543/04, Admissibility, Ever de Jesús Montero Mindiola, Colombia, October 13, 2005, which cites I/A Court H.R., Herrera Ulloa case. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 81 4 IACHR Report Nº 32/05, petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral and others affected by HIV/AIDS, Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 33-35; I/A Court H.R., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Preliminary Objections, supra note 3, para. 53; Durand and Ugarte Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31. 5 IACHR Report No. 23/07. Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al. Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, para. 43, March 9, 2007. 6 IACHR, Report No. 23/07, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al, Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, para. 43, March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 15/06, Maria Emilia González, Paula Micaela González and María Verónica Villar. Petition 618-01, Admissibility, para. 34, March 2, 2006; IACHR, Report Nº 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report 1997, paragraphs 96 and 97. See also Report N° 55/97, paragraph 392 and Report Nº 55/04 paragraph 25. 9