procedural opportunity in which to do so, did not duly file an objection based on exhaustion of domestic remedies. 15. From the case file, the Court has verified that during the admissibility proceeding before the Commission, the State filed five briefs, as indicated by the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 11). However, it was not until the presentation of its briefs of September 27, 1999, October 2, 2001, and December 29, 2003, that the State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. Nevertheless, the Tribunal notes that the arguments of said brief were not the same as the ones it filed as a preliminary objection in the answer to the application. In the admissibility stage before the Commission, the State maintained that “the proceeding had not been forwarded to a Judge of the Criminal jurisdiction where the alleged crime was committed” and from this, it was clear that the judicial proceeding had not yet concluded, to which the “[t]ribunals with jurisdiction [had] to rule on it”; that effective remedies such as cassation and review were available; and that “Mr. Vera and his relatives had unlimited access to each and every domestic legal remedy [...] offered for the protection of the right to life and other fundamental rights. Neither the detained individual, nor anyone else in the country has been denied habeas corpus, amparo, or any other remedy.” However, in its answer to the application, the State indicated that “the remedy that would be adequate and effective would be the launching of an investigation into the facts alleged by the representatives of the alleged victims […].” It also stated that “it was never precisely determined which crime was to be prosecuted [in this] case due to the complexity of the topic,” and that “the individuals were guaranteed the opportunity to bring the violations of which they may have been victims to the attention of the State[.]” 16. Therefore, the Court highlights the contradiction into which the State falls, as the arguments presented before the Inter-American Commission on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies focus on a supposed judicial proceeding that was underway, while the arguments submitted by the State before the Tribunal maintain that no judicial activity has been carried out in order to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the violations of the rights of the alleged victims and their relatives because the latter have not filed a complaint. The Court observes that the arguments presented by the State in its answer to the application were not raised at the proper procedural moment before the Commission. Thus, they do not meet one of the formal requirements that must be met for a preliminary objection of prior exhaustion of domestic judicial remedies to be accepted. This makes the analysis of the other formal and material requisites with regard to this preliminary objection unnecessary. Moreover, the content of this preliminary objection relating to the alleged failure to investigate the facts of the case is closely related to the merits of the matter, particularly with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 17. As a consequence, the Tribunal rejects the State's preliminary objection and will continue to hear the merits, reparations, and costs in this case. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 22, and Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá, supra note 3, para. 24. 8