26. Regarding the dispute as to whether the requests for annulment presented by the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías were appropriate and effective remedies, the majority opinion considered that the proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías were still at an intermediate stage, because the preliminary hearing had not been held and, consequently, the oral trial had not commenced, so that, in the Judgment, it was noted that the criminal proceedings were at an “early stage” (the first time in the Court’s history that this concept has been used). Consequently, the majority opinion found that, in these circumstances, it was not possible to analyze the negative impact that a decision could have if taken in the early stages of the proceedings, because such decisions could be corrected by domestic actions or remedies. 7 27. The majority opinion also considered that the direct application of the exception contained in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention cannot be derived from an alleged structural context of the provisional nature 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. 8 28. Furthermore, the Judgment indicated that the actual procedural stage of this case does not allow a prima facie conclusion to be reached regarding the impact of the provisional status on the guarantee of judicial independence in order to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies is admissible based on Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention and, consequently, that this exception was not applicable in the instant case. 9 29. Bearing in mind the disagreement indicated above with regard to the moment at which requests for annulment should be decided, it was noted in the Judgment that there are two interpretations of the procedural stage at which requests for annulment should be decided. The representatives supported the assertion that nullity should be decided within three days by considering that article 177 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure was applicable; while the State’s argument that it was necessary to wait until the preliminary hearing in order to decide on the said requests was based on article 330 of this Code. In defense and substantiation of their positions in this regard, the parties presented several witnesses and expert witnesses on this point, as well as case law that validated both positions. 10 30. Nevertheless, the Court decided in favor of the State’s thesis by considering that, based on the content, characteristics, complexity and length of the brief filed on November 8, 2005, the requests for annulment were not the type of request that should be decided within the three-day time frame indicated in article 177 of the said Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. 11 31. In addition, the majority opinion concluded that the absence of the presumed victim has resulted in the preliminary hearing not being held; hence, it is possible to affirm that the delay in deciding the requests for annulment could be attributed to his decision not to 7 Cf. para. 97 of the Judgment. 8 Cf. para. 105 of the Judgment. 9 Cf. paras. 111 and 112 of the Judgment. 10 Cf. paras. 118 to 127 of the Judgment. 11 Cf. paras. 130 to 133 of the Judgment. 6