mentioned in article 328 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure in force (hereinafter “the OCCP”) of September 4, 2009, the remedy of appeal (article 453 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure), the remedy of cassation (article 459 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure), and the appeal for review (article 470 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure). 12. The State also argued that “the absence of Allan Brewer Carías has made it impossible to hold the preliminary hearing, [which] has prevented the exercise of the actions established in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure that enable the parties to the proceedings to assert their rights.” It argued that this “is the opportunity granted to the accused to deny, contest and argue the facts and the law, to reply, make a rejoinder or a rebuttal, speak with defense counsel at all times, without this entailing the suspension of the hearing.” Furthermore, it considered it “unusual to claim that the judge can decide the request for a declaration of nullity without the presence of the accused, and that the preliminary hearing can be held subsequently, [because] this would result in a major violation of due process and of the rights of Allan Brewer Carías.” 13. The State alleged that the criminal proceedings had not progressed owing to the absence of Mr. Brewer Carías, and that, without his presence, the request for annulment could not be decided. Therefore, it argued that the completion of the criminal proceedings and the presentation of remedies such as an appeal, cassation or review represented the appropriate remedies for the presumed victim. 14. In addition, the State argued that “there is no human rights violation in a trial that never started because the petitioner left the country” and that “the OCCP and the case law of our Supreme Court of Justice have determined that the request for annulment filed by the lawyers of Mr. Brewer Carías must be decided during the preliminary hearing.” 1.2 Position of the representatives 15. For their part, the representatives of the presumed victim 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 Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. In addition, they contested the State’s argument that the remedy had not be 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. 16. 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 American 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, arguments and evidence brief was submitted to the Inter-American Court) since it was filed without even a start having been made on processing it. 17. The representatives argued, also, that this remedy constitutes “the amparo remedy in criminal procedural matters,” and thus, “if a decision on the remedy of amparo has to await the preliminary hearing, which can be delayed indefinitely […], the remedy could not be considered simple and prompt; and if the decision on it was conditioned to [Mr.] Brewer Carías giving himself up to his persecutors and being deprived of his liberty, international 3