autonomous petitions that can be decided in the absence of the accused, at a time other than the preliminary hearing, because the annulment of the indictment – requested by the defense counsel of [Mr.] Brewer Carías – does not relate to incidental matters that violate his rights, but is a request that relates to the merits and the essence of the preliminary hearing and, therefore, must be decided in the presence of the parties so as not to violate due process.” The State argued that, “consequently, the request of the defense counsel of [Mr.] Brewer Carías, and also those of the prosecution in the indictment brief, have not been decided, not because it is sought to violate [Mr. Brewer’s] rights, or because it is intended to postpone the proceedings, or because the Venezuelan State is delaying matters, but because, while this person is absent, removed from the criminal proceedings, a fugitive from Venezuelan justice, it is not possible to session and decide on the petitions of the parties, because all the parties must be present and, furthermore, the requests relate to decisions concerning the merits of the case.” The State also argued that the representatives “seek […] to violate the principle of complementarity […], adducing political persecution, which does not exist, and arguing that, since they exercised some remedies – not all of them – which were not decided in their favor, they have already exhausted the domestic remedies.” In the final written arguments, the State reiterated the arguments included in the answering brief and requested that the Court “declare the inadmissibility of the request made by the defense counsel of [Mr.] Brewer Carías, because it is not in keeping with the parameters established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention […], as the domestic remedies described by the State have not been exhausted.” 20. In its brief with observations on the preliminary objections, the Commission considered that “the arguments submitted to the Court by the State do not differ substantively from those submitted to the [Commission] during the admissibility stage.” Consequently, it indicated that “in Admissibility Report 97/09, it had ruled on the admissibility requirements established in the American Convention, including that of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. This ruling was based on the information available at that time, as well as on the application of Articles 46(1) and 46(2)(b) and (c) of the Convention.” The Commission emphasized that the conclusions at the admissibility stage “were reached using the applicable prima facie standard of assessment.” 21. Regarding the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, the Commission argued that “it had no evidence to attribute to the State an unwarranted delay in deciding the criminal proceedings as a whole, because the physical absence of the accused would prevent holding the preliminary hearing and other procedural actions relating to his trial.” However, the Commission argued that “the failure to decide the appeal for a declaration of nullity filed on November 8, 2005, by the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías was ‘evidence of a delay that could be attributed to the State as regards deciding the claims relating to due process that were filed during the proceedings.” In this regard, the Commission emphasized that “during the admissibility stage, […] the State failed to provide a satisfactory explanation of the reasons that prevented the domestic judicial authorities from ruling on the arguments that supported the appeal for a declaration of nullity owing to the absence of Mr. Brewer Carías.” 22. Second, regarding the presumed failure to exhaust domestic remedies “in view of the supposed violation of the presumption of innocence owing to declarations made by members of the judiciary about the guilt of Mr. Brewer Carías, as well as the alleged violation of independence and impartiality owing to the provisional status of judges and prosecutors involved in the trial,” the Commission stated that “these arguments were presented to the domestic judicial authorities in the request for annulment regarding which a delay that could be attributed to the State had already been determined.” The Commission also analyzed these arguments under Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, 9