the [presumed] victim cannot obtain the protection ensured to him by the Constitution and the Convention, without first abandoning his right to personal liberty and delivering himself up to those who are persecuting him, and who would immediately execute the illegal arrest warrant that has been issued against” Mr. Brewer Carías. They added that “the State seeks that, in order to be able to exhaust the domestic remedies, [Mr.] Brewer must sacrifice his personal liberty, submitting to the discretion of courts that lack independence and impartiality, and to the inhuman and degrading treatment resulting from detention in prisons without natural light and without ventilation, as the Court has had the occasion to verify.” They indicated that Mr. Brewer cannot be reproached for “protecting that liberty himself by being outside the country and delaying his return, because the State has denied him that protection and has threatened him.” They stated that Mr. Brewer feels “a justified fear that the exercise of the jurisdictional remedies may jeopardize the exercise of his rights.” 27. Regarding the absence of the presumed victim at the preliminary hearing, the representatives argued that this did not prevent deciding the request for annulment, considering that the right of the accused not to be tried in absentia is “a procedural guarantee that must always be understood in favor of the accused and never against him.” They argued that “the procedural actions that cannot be conducted without the presence [of the presumed victim] are those that relate to his trial, which include the preliminary hearing and the oral and public hearing, [and this] does not preclude conducting numerous other judicial actions that do not entail trying him in absentia, [such as] the request for the annulment of all the proceedings to date.” They cited article 327 and the following articles of the OCCP in order to determine the procedural actions that must be decided in the preliminary hearing and, consequently, with the “essential” presence of the accused, reiterating that the request for annulment owing to violation of procedural guarantees must be decided without the need to hold the said hearing and without requiring the presence of the accused. 28. The representatives also argued that “the only available judicial remedy against the massive violation of the right to due process” was that of absolute nullity based on the unconstitutionality of the judicial proceedings under article 191 of the OCCP. In this regard, they indicated that the law did not establish a time frame for deciding the filing of the said remedy; hence, they stated that the judicial authority should have proceeded in accordance with the general provision established in article 177 of the said Code, and issued a ruling within three days of the filing of the remedy. Accordingly, they concluded that, when the motions and arguments brief was presented, there had been an unwarranted delay of seven years. They contested the State’s argument that the remedy had not been decided because it had to be decided during the preliminary hearing, since more than three years had passed without this having been held for reasons that presumably were not related to the presumed victim’s absence; a lapse that they considered had “delayed without justification” the decision on the remedy. They also argued that “the general rule contained in article 177 of the OCCP is entirely congruent with the principle of the pre-eminence of human rights […], which imposes on all judges the unavoidable obligation of ruling on the petitions relating to such rights, without delay and with prevalence over any other matter.” 29. The representatives considered that, although the request for a declaration of absolute nullity complies, in theory, with the requirements established in Article 25 of the Convention (simple, prompt and effective), in the specific case, “and in the context of a judiciary that lacks the impartiality to decide,” there has been a “denial of justice,” because seven years have passed (at the time the motions and arguments brief was submitted) since it was filed, without even a start having been made on processing it. The representatives argued that the said remedy constitutes “the amparo [remedy of protection] 11