Provisional prosecutor to allow the defense counsel and Mr. Brewer “immediate access [to the case file], providing them with copies of the case file or videos that ha[d] been requested and, if necessary, owing to the size of the case file and the space, to provide them with a larger physical area to the present one, to study the file.” 50 In addition, at that time the Twenty-fifth Judge indicated “[r]egarding a ruling of the court on the pertinence or usefulness of the evidence, both that offered by the Public Prosecution Service and that offered by the defense, this corresponds to a future stage; currently the case is at the investigation stage, […] and, on this occasion, it is not in order […] to make a ruling on the pertinence, necessity or usefulness of any type of evidence offered by the parties. Furthermore, […] the refusal of the Public Prosecution Service to gather certain evidence, does not constitute an impediment for the defense to offer it subsequently, pursuant to the established procedure and means.” 51 The decision of May 11, 2005, was declared absolutely null on July 6, 2005, by the Court of Appeal, which ordered another supervisory judge to rule on the brief of the defense. 52 This was because it considered that the Twenty-fifth Judge had not taken into account in his decision “the reasons given by the Public Prosecution Service to refuse the interviews, […] so that the adversarial principle had been violated.” 53 55. On May 30, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor had asked the Ninth Chamber of the Court of Appeal to nullify the decision of the Twenty-fifth Judge, because the brief filed by the defense counsel had not been notified, so that he had been unable to present a defense. 54 The prosecutor indicated that the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías had been able to examine the case file during all the proceedings since his accusation and that the corresponding records existed with this information. In addition, the prosecutor indicated that “almost all the numerous pieces of evidence requested by the defense counsel have been agreed to; consequently, it is also false that the petition to obtain evidence has been disregarded.” 55 56. On June 3, 2005, “Guaicaipuro Lameda’s defense counsel asked the court to establish a time frame for the Public Prosecution Service to present its final decision.” In response to this request, on June 10, 2005, the Twenty-fifth Judge “sent a note to the Sixth National Prosecutor requesting a report on the actual status of the case, [and that he should forward the case file], emphasizing that both instructions were in order to verify the time frame and the admissibility of the request that had been made.” 56 On June 27, 2005, the Sixth Prosecutor asked the judge “to indicate […] the rule on which he had based his request, imposing on the Public Prosecution Service the obligation to provide information on and forward the proceedings that were being conducted before it.” 57 The Twenty-fifth Judge 50 Decision of the Twenty-fifth Judge of May 11, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1076). 51 Decision of the Twenty-fifth Judge of May 11, 2005, folio 1078. 52 Decision of July 6, 2005, of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of Appeal deciding the appeal against the decision of the Twenty-fifth Supervising Court of May 11, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome III, folios 1082 to 1098). 53 Decision of July 6, 2005, of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of Appeal deciding the appeal against the decision of the Twenty-fifth Supervising Court of May 11, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome III, folio 1095). 54 Request for annulment of the Sixth Prosecutor of May 30, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome III, folios 1101 to 1140). 55 Request for annulment of the Provisional Prosecutor of June 30, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 10, folio 12865). 56 Note No. 632-05 of June 27, 2005, of the Twenty-fifth Judge (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome III, folios 1139 and 1140). 57 Brief of the Sixth Prosecutor of June 27, 2005, addressed to the Twenty-fifth Supervisory Judge (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome III, folio 1137). 19