6 Commission and this Court) the parties shall be able to resort to the Inter-American system of protection or, failing that, to prove that the remedies are ineffective and inoperative to solve the issue at stake. In other words, the petition lodged before this Inter-American system for the protection of human rights must be closely related to the remedies exhausted at the domestic level in order to verify, among other things, the suitability of the proceeding chosen to protect, at the international level, the situation reported to be violated, as well as the proper exhaustion of domestic remedies, all this to give the State the possibility of not only examining and determining, by means of the domestic remedies, the case but also repairing the damage probable caused. The international jurisdiction is of a subsidiary, reinforcing and complementary 7 nature. There is no evidence in the court records showing that the remedies mentioned supra (or some other recourse that may exist) were filed or whether they were effective within the domestic courts; no reason was given about why such remedies were not filed, in accordance with the requirement stipulated in article 46 (2) a), b), c) of the Convention; as a result, the Commission, in my opinion, had to examine the reasonings about the exhaustion of the domestic remedies and come to the conclusion that the petition filed before it should be declared to be inadmissible. This Court has ruled upon, on several occassions, on the procedural opportunity to determine about a ground of inadmissibility as the one put forward by the State and the Court has pointed out it may decide on the objection prior to the judgment on the merits 8 or as a preliminary phase, in the judgment that finally settles the controversy.9 In the case at hand, the petitioners alleged to have exhausted the domestic remedies by means of complaints filed before the Attorney General’s Office and some proceedings instituted before the criminal courts, which, I insist, are not consistent with the legal claims lodged before this Court. 10 In fact, the criminal court exercising criminal jurisdiction in Venezuela (and not acting as constitutional court) within the sphere of its authorities, could not rule upon the violation of freedom of expression (as has been one of the decisions of this Court) or order measures necessary to avoid acts of State’s agents and private individuals tending to hamper the seeking, reception and dissemination of information by mass media and 7 Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al V. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 47; the Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights. (Art. 74 and 75). Advisory Opinion OC-2/82 of September 24, 1982, Series A Nº.2, para. 31; The Word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986, Series A Nº.6, para. 26, and Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 61. 8 ; See, Judgment in favor of a preliminary decision different from the decision on the merits. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90; and Case of Godínez Cruz V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. 9 See, Judgment in favor of joining the decision of exhaustion of remedies to the merits of the case: Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. 10 From another point of view, in consideration of the suitability of the criminal proceedings, consult the concurring opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez in the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the case of Kimel, of May 2, 2008.