10 compliance with the procedural rule concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.15 I believe that any decision delivered by this Court must be subsidiary to the system of justice of each State and the Court may only issue a ruling prior to a State’s decision, if the ineffectiveness of the remedies was proven; which did not happen in the case at hand, consistent with the claims made before this Court, considering that such remedies were not lodged. I hereby present my dissenting opinion for considering that there must be harmony among the Convention, the Rules of Procedure of the Commission and of the Court and the domestic set of rules of the defendant State, which I have tried, in my capacity as judge ad hoc, to bring to the attention of the Court’s Judges in order for them to closely learn about the law enforced in the State under question and the practice developed by it, together with its standards, in order to bring it in line with the precepts of the American Convention. 2) Substantive reasons: Even when technically it would not be necessary to carry out an analysis regarding the merits of the case at hand, I think it is appropriate to analyze them inasmuch as by dismissing the preliminary objection of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court pointed out: “On the other hand, the Court estimates that a preliminary analysis on the effectiveness of the investigations on the facts presented in this case will implicate an evaluation on the acting of the State in relation to its obligation to guarantee the acknowledged rights in the American Convention, which violation is alleged, in particular through serious and effective investigations, matter that should be analyzed deeply in the controversy for which it considered pertinent to accumulate the exception requested by the State, and examine the arguments of the parties, when determining if the State is responsible for the violation of the Articles of the Convention allegedly violated.” It spring from the foregoing that according to the Court, the objection of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies was related to the merits; therefore, the Court analyzed it upon examining the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment and freedom of thought and expression. Hence, even though in the operative paragraph of the judgment, the Court did not declare that the Venezuelan State failed to comply with the obligation established in Article 816 of the Convention (right to a fair trial), the operative paragraph related to 15 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of June 12, 2002. Series C No. para. 27; Case of Goiburú et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. para. 71; Case of Goiburú et al. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. para. 71; and Case of Hilaire. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 1, 2001. Series C No. para. 80. 16 93, 82, 81, 80, Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any