of the accused, because it is part of the trial” and that “the presence of the accused is essential.” In addition, Mr. Brewer’s defense counsel acknowledged this during the criminal proceedings when he stated that “the only occasion on which [Mr.] Brewer Carías had the procedural obligation to appear in person at a judicial act was the preliminary hearing.” 156 Based on the fact that the presence of Mr. Brewer Carías was necessary in order to hold the preliminary hearing, the parties were in dispute as to whether the postponement of this could be attributed to Mr. Brewer’s absence, or whether it was due to circumstances beyond his control. 137. In this regard, the representatives have argued throughout the proceedings that the State “has been unable to present […] any proof of even one case in which the preliminary hearing has been postponed due to the failure to appear of Mr. Brewer Carías.” The representatives founded their assertion on the judicial decision of the Twenty-fifth Court of July 20, 2007, 157 responding to the request to separate Mr. Brewer from the case, owing to “the impossibility of executing this measure because he was abroad,” presented by another of those accused in the proceedings, who was also awaiting the holding of the preliminary hearing. On that occasion, in the reasoning of his decision not to separate the case, the judge stated that: “In the case in question, the preliminary hearing has not been delayed by the failure to appear of [Mr.] Brewer Carías; to the contrary, the different postponements that appear in the records of this case file have been due to the numerous requests filed by the different defense counsel of the defendants.” 138. Although the Twenty-fifth Court made this assertion in which, in general, it indicated that none of the postponements had been caused by Mr. Brewer’s absence, a review of the case file of the criminal proceedings provided to this Court reveals the contrary. In fact, the first summons to hold the preliminary hearing set this for November 17, 2005, 158 a date on which Mr. Brewer Carías had already left the country (supra para. 58). After this, and up until the preventive detention order was issued against Mr. Brewer, the preliminary hearing was delayed or postponed five times, 159 and on three of these occasions, this postponement was directly related to the actions of Mr. Brewer or his defense counsel. The first time, the defense recused the Twenty-fifth Judge on November 16, 2005; thus, the preliminary hearing scheduled for November 17, 2005, was not held. 160 Second, on March 7, 2006, it was recorded that “[Mr.] Brewer Carías failed to appear and, added to this, the Twenty-fifth Judge [was] on leave, and the Twenty-fourth Supervisory Judge headed the court […]; accordingly, it was agreed to postpone [the preliminary hearing] until April 4, 2006.” 161 156 Ruling of the Twenty-fifth Supervisory Judge of First Instance of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas of January 25, 2008 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome V, folios 6893 to 6910). 157 Ruling of the Twenty-fifth Court of July 20, 2007, on the brief filed by the defense counsel of José Gregorio Vásquez (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome v, folios 6832 to 6838). 158 Order of the Twenty-fifth Judge of October 24, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14386). 159 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of November 17, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 16, folio 15805); Order of February 7, 2006 of the Twenty-fifth Judge (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16720); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of March 7, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16874); Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of April 10, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16942), and Ruling of the Twenty-fifth Court of May 9, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 19, folios 17305 to 17307). 160 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of November 17, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 16, folio 15805). 161 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of March 7, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16874). 44