committed by the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor by not forwarding the requested case file, 76 and he was substituted – a few days after this dispute – by provisional judge José Alonso Dugarte Ramos. 77 In the Judgment, it is considered that, since the said dispute between the judge and the prosecutor is related to a request by the defense counsel of another of the accused, 78 it is not possible to establish a direct causal link between the decision to annul the appointment of Judge Bognanno 79 and the effects on the presumed victim; an argument that we do not share, because the majority opinion disregards the fact that this is the same judge who is hearing the same criminal proceedings in which Mr. Brewer Carías is one of the accused and one of the central arguments of the representatives of the presumed victim is, precisely, the impact of the provisional status of judges and prosecutors who may be freely removed. 84. This “impact of provisional and temporary prosecutors and judges,” as well as the effects that this had on the proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías, is closely related to the presumed violation of Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention — the right to an adequate defense – because, as the case file shows, during the indictment stage of the proceedings, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor did not permit Mr. Brewer Carías to be provided with photocopies of the proceedings, 80 which means that that the accused had to go in person on several occasions, over the course of nine months, to copy by hand the proceedings, the photocopies of which he was systematically denied. 81 In addition, the same Provisional Prosecutor refused to give the accused full access to the case file; in particular as regards the examination and transcription of the videos that were cited as evidence against Mr. Brewer Carías. 82 85. In this regard, the Inter-American Court’s case law is relevant as regards the right to adequate time and means for the preparation of the defense established in Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, which implies the obligation of the State to allow the accused access to the case file against him. 83 In this regard, the Court has determined that domestic law must organize the respective proceedings in accordance with the Pact of San José. 84 Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has stipulated that the State’s obligation to adapt 76 Regarding the dispute between the Twenty-fifth First Instance Supervisory Judge of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, Judge Manuel Bognanno, and the Provisional Sixth Prosecutor, see para. 58 of the resolution. 77 Cf. Table of appointments made by the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary dated June 29, 2005 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome III, folio 1142). 78 Cf. para. 56 of the Judgment. 79 Cf. para. 110 of the Judgment. 80 During the public hearing, reference was made to a circular that prohibited making photocopies. The file contains the circular issued by the office of the Prosecutor General on July 10, 2001, which ordered “desist[ing] from issuing simple or certified copies of the investigation records, which should not be understood as a restriction of the right of the accused, the defense counsel, and other persons who have been authorized to intervene in the proceedings to examine the records that are part of the investigation” (tome VII, folio 3152 of the file). 81 As established by the State itself, Mr. Brewer Carías signed “seventeen records registering access to and review of the case file” (tome I, folio 731 of the file). 82 Decision of the prosecutor of April 21, 2005 (file of annex 1 to the answering brief, exhibit 9, folio 1236). 83 Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No 135, para. 170. 84 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 233; Case of Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 247; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 188, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 247 21