72. On May 9, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Judge ordered a verification of “the migratory movements of [Mr.] Brewer Carías,” 84 because he considered that “in view of the results of the notices served on [Mr.] Brewer Carías by the Clerk of the Court’s Office, it was pertinent to make the following observations: the parties must appear in person at the preliminary hearing which is an intermediate stage; otherwise, the hearing must be postponed until all the necessary parties are present in person. However, […] the repeated postponements of the preliminary hearing owing to the failure of the parties to appear without justification results in an abuse of the right to stand trial as free men by those who fail to appear […]. A logical deductive inference from the results of the efforts to serve notice to [Mr.] Brewer Carías, lead this court to consider, reasonably, that there is uncertainty as regards his presence in the country, and this would indicate the impossibility of his appearing in person at the preliminary hearing. This is a reasonable consideration of this judge based on the results of the notifications carried out on reiterated occasions. This situation would negate the right of the other accused to obtain promptly from the jurisdictional organs the decisions that must be taken at the preliminary hearing during this intermediate stage.” 85 On this basis, the Twenty-fifth Judge also decided to delay the hearing until June 20, 2006. 73. On May 10, 2006, the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías informed the Twentyfifth Judge that the latter would not return to the country because he considered that: 86 (i) “the actions of the Public Prosecution Service in this case have represented evident official political persecution against him”; (ii) the Prosecutor General himself […] ha[d] directly violated the guarantee of the presumption of innocence by condemning him publicly in advance with the publication of the book ‘Abril comienza en octubre’”; (iii) “in response to the opportune claim filed before the court, he had only received negative responses [and] these negative and frequently delayed responses from the jurisdictional organ ha[d], in turn, constituted fresh violations of his constitutional guarantees”; (iv) “his right to obtain the dismissal of the case in the intermediate stage of the proceedings had been curtailed”; (v) “all of this represented the denial of accessible, impartial, appropriate, transparent, autonomous, independent, responsible, equitable and expedite justice”; (vi) “the indictment is, in itself, already a sentence designed to punish his political and ideological criticism of the project intended to subjugate Venezuela,” and (vii) he had “been appointed associate professor of the law school of Columbia University” in the United States of America, and had accepted this position. Lastly, he stated that he had “taken the decision to wait until the conditions were appropriate to obtain an impartial trial, that respected his judicial guarantees; [he therefore informed the court] so that it could take the pertinent decision and continue the proceedings, in order not to cause any delay, or prejudice the other accused.” 74. On June 2, 2006, the Sixth Prosecutor again asked the judge to order the preventive detention of Mr. Brewer Carías, stating that the brief presented by the defense counsel on May 10, 2006, “reveal[ed] that the accused [… was] outside the country and that he d[id] not intend to return, so that it [was] necessary to conclude that his intention [was] not to submit to the criminal proceedings [and that], consequently, the accused w[ould] not attend the preliminary hearing set for June 20, 2006.” 87 On June 15, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Court 84 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). 85 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). 86 Brief of the defense of May 10, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 19, folios 17320 to 17322). 87 Brief of June 2, 2006, submitted to the judge by the prosecutor (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome IV, folios 1433 to 1436). 24