represented appropriate and effective remedies, even more effective than a remedy of amparo in the specific case – according to the case law of the Constitutional Chamber cited above. 25 And this is, regardless of the fact that, in the specific case, when analyzing the merits, it was possible to observe that these requests for annulment were not even processed by the State. In addition, the arguments and consideration on this aspect should have been interpreted by the Court pursuant to Article 29 of the American Convention, which establishes an interpretation that is preferentially pro homine. Indeed, as InterAmerican Court has established: 26 “It must be stressed that the international protection system should be understood as a whole, a principle established in Article 29 of the American Convention, which imposes a framework of protection that always give preference to the interpretation or the norm that is more favorable to the rights of the individual, the keystone for protection of the whole inter-American system. In this regard, the adoption of a restrictive interpretation of the scope of this Court’s competence would not only run counter to the object and purpose of the Convention, but would also impair the practical effects of the treaty itself and the guarantee of protection that it establishes, with negative consequences for the presumed victim in the exercise of his right of access to justice” (underlining added). 45. Hence, by failing to show which specific remedy was the appropriate one, or to verify fully the State’s argument that the remedy filed was inappropriate, the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies should not even have been examined. 2.1.c Regarding the so-called “early stage” as an alleged new element in the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies 46. Third, we do not consider admissible the majority proceedings are still at an “early stage” (a new concept created law), and that this means that it is not possible to analyze decision may have, because decisions can be amended or remedies or actions established in domestic law at later stages. opinion that the criminal in the Judgment and in case the negative impact that a rectified by means of the 47. This consideration runs counter to the case law of the Inter-American Court over the more than 26 years of its contentious jurisdiction since its first decision on the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, 27 thus creating a disturbing precedent contrary to its own case law and the right of access to justice in the inter-American system. 48. Indeed, in its first contentious case, the 1987 case of Velásquez Rodríguez, the Court found as follows: 91. The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies under international human rights law has certain implications that are present in the Convention. Under the Convention, States Parties have the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1). Thus, when certain exceptions to the 25 See supra, para. 42 of this joint dissenting opinion. 26 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 24. 27 No. 1. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C 10