117. Once again, the issue of presumed violations of Articles 8(1) (right to an independent and impartial judge or court, 8(2) (basic rights of a person accused of a criminal offense, which are, inter alia the presumption of innocence, an adequate defense, and to present and to examine witnesses), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), as well as the restrictive interpretation itself of Article 7(5) of the American Convention made by the majority opinion in this case, leads us to assert categorically that the Inter-American Court should have examined the dispute regarding the need for the accused’s presence at the preliminary hearing and the reasons why the hearing was postponed, in light of the considerations on merits relating to these articles, in order to have a broader context for its examination of this and other disputes in the case. 118. In sum, we, the undersigned, dissent from the majority opinion because we consider that the three exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention can be determined, because the case involves questions of substance, especially those relating to supposed violations of the rights to an independent and impartial judge and court (Art. 8(1) ACHR), to due process (Art. 8(2) ACHR), and to judicial protection (Art. 25 ACHR). By accepting the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Mr. Brewer is being condemned to face a trial in which it is possible that violations of the American Convention have been committed. 119. Consequently, the Inter-American Court should have rejected the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and should have proceeded to decide the merits of the case, pursuant to the consistent case law in this matter established by the Court itself. The use of the contrived theory of the “early stage” of the proceedings as one of the central arguments in the Judgment in order not to proceed to analyze the presumed violations of the human rights protected by the Pact of San José, represents a clear step backwards in the Court’s consistent case law, which may establish the precedent that negative consequences are being created for the presumed victims in the exercise of the right of access to justice, a fundamental right of extreme importance for the inter-American system as a whole, because it constitutes a guarantee for the other rights of the American Convention and jeopardizes the practical effects (effet util) of this instrument. 3. Defense of the rule of law and the exercise of the legal profession 120. As noted throughout this opinion, we consider that the Court should have proceeded to examine the merits of the case, because the matters of admissibility and of merits were closely related. They include the effect of the provisional status of prosecutors and judges and its specific impact on criminal proceedings; the analysis of the presumption of innocence, an adequate defense and, in general, aspects related to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 121. Moreover, we consider that the analysis of the merits was essential, also, in order to examine the fact that an internationally renowned jurist, such as Allan Brewer Carías, has been criminally indicted for responding to a request for his professional advice. The facts reveal that the accused, Mr. Brewer Carías, merely availed himself of his right to exercise the legal profession. 122. Already, on a previous occasion, the Inter-American Court analyzed a criminal conviction based on a person’s exercise of his profession. Thus, in the case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, 118 the victim had received a criminal sentence for treating members of 118 Cf. Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. 32