104. In its Admissibility Report, the Inter-American Commission considered that it was not admissible to apply the exception established in Article 46(2)(a) for the following reasons: 135 90. The petitioners consider that in cases of political persecution, international law is on the side of one who seeks protection from the State in question. It indicates that this is the ultimate basis of asylum and refuge as legal institutions, and they cite the principle of non-refoulement. The Commission understands, however, that Allan Brewer Carías is not abroad with refugee status. The Commission considers that an eventual analysis of the allegations of political persecution or of the factors that would have affected his right to due process should be done during the stage on the merits. 91. As for the petitioner’s argument regarding the illusory nature of domestic remedies due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the Judiciary, the petitioners base their argument on the election of the Supreme Court of Justice not having been done in keeping with the Constitution; that the reform of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2002 established the election of judges by simple majority, and that those justices who do not follow the government line have been removed or “retired.” […] 92. While the [Inter-American Commission] has expressed its concern over factors that may affect the impartiality and independence of some public servants working in the Public Prosecution Service and the Judiciary in Venezuela on several occasions, the nature of contentious proceedings requires that the petitioners present concrete arguments on the impact on the judicial proceedings related to the claim. Generic mentions of the context are not sufficient per se to justify the citing of that objection (bold added). 105. Although it is true that, in its arguments before this Court, the Inter-American Commission has insisted that the “problem posed in this case is structural and responds to a de facto situation of the Judiciary that far exceeds the abstract regulation of the criminal proceedings,” the Court has no evidence that contradicts the Inter-American Commission’s decision in its Admissibility Report regarding the inadmissibility of the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. In this regard, the Court considers that the direct application of the exception contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention cannot be derived from an alleged structural context of the provisional status of the judiciary, because this would mean that, based on a general argument on the lack of independence and impartiality of the judiciary, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.3.3.2. The party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them (Article 46(2)(b) 106. The representatives argued that, by supposedly conditioning, “arbitrarily and illegally,” the processing of the request for annulment to the appearance of the presumed victim, based on a court order contrary to the Convention, Mr. Brewer Carías was prevented from having access to the domestic remedies, to which was added “a well-founded fear” that the exercise of the remedies would increase the persecution to which he had supposedly been subjected (supra para. 34). 107. In its Admissibility Report, the Inter-American Commission considered that the exception established in Article 46(2)(b) was admissible in this case for the following reasons: 136 135 Admissibility Report No. 97/09, Petition 84-07, Allan R. Brewer Carías, Venezuela, September 8, 2009 (file of annexes to the report, appendix, tome IV, folio 3629). 136 Admissibility report No. 97/09, Petition 84-07, Allan R. Brewer Carías, Venezuela, September 8, 2009 (file of annexes to the report, appendix, tome IV, folios 3629 and 3630). 35