The State is obliged to decide the request for annulment before the preliminary hearing, because that decision will determine whether or not the proceedings are free of constitutional violations. Once the decision on annulment has been taken, the preliminary hearing can then be convened if the request for annulment is declared inadmissible. This is the situation of the proceedings at the present time; paralyzed by the State because the judge has not decided the request for annulment which is the only one that exists and there is no other remedy, and this is why the preliminary hearing cannot be convened. 122. In addition, expert witness Ollarves Irazábal indicated that: 144 The time frame for deciding it is clearly identified in our laws in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; it is three days; this is for absolute nullities, nullities that violate the essential content of human rights, the constitutional rights and guarantees that cannot be ratified or rectified. […] Relative nullities, nullities that can be rectified, refer to the nullity that may be involved in the requirements established in article 326 relating to the charges. And, in the case of absolute nullities, these cannot be rectified and must be decided within a definite time frame of three days as the Constitutional Chamber has repeatedly indicated. 123. Meanwhile, witness Castellanos stated that: 145 Nullity as such is not a remedy, but rather a prerogative of all the parties who intervene in a criminal proceeding in order to denounce the violation of constitutional prerogatives that apply in their favor. The request for a declaration of nullity is filed in the intermediate stage […], but also in the context of the brief with objections and offer of evidence, which are essentially a form of answering the charges, this request for annulment, together with the other claims must be decided during the preliminary hearing. […] This nullity was requested in the context of the exercise of the burden that falls on the defense to react to the charges, and the only way that the court has to rule on this request for annulment, which was requested in the brief filed by the defense, is during the preliminary hearing, because the request for annulment is analyzed in that brief and […] a similarity exists between the presentation made by the defense, for example, when filing the objections, but it is also cited in the request for annulment. A ruling on nullity would mean that the judge would be making an early ruling on the merits during the preliminary hearing. 124. The parties also referred to case law of the Supreme Court that would support their theses. Thus, for example, expert witness Ollarves Irazábal provided the Court with several judgments of the Supreme Court that reveal the complexity of this matter. In one of these judgments, on February 14, 2002, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court 146 indicated that: During the preparatory and intermediate stages of criminal proceedings, the supervisory judge shall ensure that the procedural guarantees are respected, but the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure does not indicate the procedural occasion for filing and deciding violations of such guarantees […]. Since the law is silent on this point, how should the supervisory judge deal with a request for annulment? In the opinion of this Chamber, it depends on the procedural stage at which the request is filed, and if it is filed in the intermediate stage, the judge can decide it either before the preliminary hearing or as a result of that hearing, varying according to the constitutional violation that has been alleged, because there are violations that it is not urgent to decide, because they do not harm the legal situation of the parties immediately or irreparably. […] If a request for annulment is filed, the supervisory judge – based on the urgency in view of the type of violation, and given the silence of the law – may, before ordering that the case go to trial, and at any time before that act, rule on it, even though it is preferable that this is done during the preliminary hearing.[…] 144 Statement made by expert witness Jesús Ollarves Irazábal during the public hearing held in this case. 145 Statement made by witness Néstor Castellanos during the public hearing held in this case. 146 Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 14, 2002 (Merits Report, tome VII, folio 3167). Similarly, in its Merits Report, the Commission cited another decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. File No. 07-0827. Decision of July 20, 2007. 40