115. The fact that Mr. Brewer Carías left the country in September 2005 (freely, because no arrest warrant had been issued against him), and at the same time as the publication of the Prosecutor General’s book, does not mean that he was a fugitive from justice. As previously mentioned (see supra para. 106 of this opinion), the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías informed the judge that Mr. Brewer would not return to the country owing to a series of procedural violations that he had indicated were “clearly official political persecution against him.” Hence, according to the representatives there was a “wellfounded fear” that the exercise of the remedies would increase the persecution to which he had been subjected. In addition, they indicated “that he remains abroad as an exile in order to safeguard his freedom and his physical and moral integrity.” 116 Accordingly, in this case the reasons why the presumed victim is not coming forward should be analyzed in light of the arguments submitted on merits, because if they are justified, it would be contrary to the American Convention to oblige a person to attend his trial deprived of liberty, when violations of the rights to the presumption of innocence, to be tried by an independent and impartial judge or court, to due process, and to judicial guarantees established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention haves been proved; rights expressly cited as violated in the case of the currently presumed victim, and not analyzed in the case. 116. The interpretation made of Article 7(5) of the American Convention in the Judgment departs from the provisions of Article 29 of the Pact of San José, which establishes that no provision of the Convention may be interpreted as permitting any State Party to suppress or limit the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention. The majority opinion does not analyze Article 7(5) of the Convention in light of Article 29 of this instrument but, to the contrary, decides to make a restrictive interpretation that limits this article, disregarding the pro homine status that should be given to this interpretation, according to the said article 29 of the Convention and the Court’s consistent case law, in the understanding that, the right to personal liberty is involved. Claiming that Mr. Brewer Carías should return to his country and lose his liberty and, in these conditions, defend himself personally in a trial, constitutes an incongruent and restrictive argument with regard to the right of access to justice, because, the aspects relating to merits invoked by the presumed victim involving diverse violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention were not analyzed in this case, and they inherently condition the interpretive scope of Article 7(5) of the Pact of San José regarding the right to personal liberty. 117 exhibit 10, folio 12609); record of review of case file No. C43 of June 1, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 11, folio 12887); record of review of case file No. C43 of June 7, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 11, folio 12928); record of review of case file No. C43 of June 9, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 11, folio 12954); record of review of case file No. C43 of June 15, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 11, folio 12970); record of review of case file No. C43 of June 29, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 11, folio 12992); record of review of case file No. C43 of July 4, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 11, folio 13014); record of review of case file No. C43 of July 4, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 13052); record of review of case file No. C43 of July 11, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 13095); record of review of case file No. C43 of September 22, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 13980); record of review of case file No. C43 of September 27, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 13997); record of review of case file No. C43 of September 28, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14008); record of review of case file No. C43 of September 30, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14022); record of review of case file No. C43 of October 7, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14100), among others. 116 Brief with final arguments and observations of the representatives of Mr. Brewer Carías, para. 133. 117 It should not be ignored, as revealed by the case file, that the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías expressly asked that Mr. Brewer be guaranteed the right to be tried a free man, a request of October 26, 2005, that was not even processed. Cf. Appeal of the defense counsel before the Twenty-fifth Supervisory Judge received on October 28, 2005 (file of annexes to the merits report, tome IV, folios 1636 to 1700). 31