process, the other two judges on that court were replaced by attorneys who were not alternates. He stated that on September 26, 2005 the recording judge submitted the same draft decision, which was rejected by the new members of the court. He indicated that consequently the drafting of the new report fell to one of those attorneys, and that on September 29, 2005 they dismissed the appeal. 18. The petitioner affirmed that he filed a cassation appeal of the latter decision, which was ruled inadmissible on February 7, 2006. The petitioner added that there is no further remedy against this decision, and that on July 7, 2006 the Ninth Criminal Circuit Trial Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area (hereinafter “Ninth Circuit Court”) issued a decree ordering that the sentence be carried out, while it reaffirmed the trial court decision which: a) sentenced him to two years and three months of imprisonment for the crime of continued aggravated defamation; b) imposed the respective additional legal punishments as well as court costs; c) ordered to maintain the prohibition to leave the country; d) ordered publication of the complete text of the Judgment, once, in two nationally circulated newspapers; e) ordered that certified copies of the Judgment be remitted to the Department for the Execution of Criminal Sentences of the Ministry of Interior and Justice so that his name would appear on the registry of persons with criminal records; and f) ordered that a certified copy of the Judgment be sent to the National Electoral Council and the Office of Identification and Foreign Nationals so that he could be made ineligible to exercise his civil rights. 19. In terms of the arguments of law, the petitioner alleged that the judge who heard the complaint filed against him did not have jurisdiction because according to Venezuelan legislation, this was to have been heard by an oversight court and not a trial court. 20. The petitioner additionally argued that the injunction preventing him from leaving the country violated his right to a presumption of innocence, and was not sufficiently based on reasons of risk of flight; the order simply stated that the defendant had the means to leave the country for good and that in recent years several people had evaded responsibility for political crimes. He stated that this measure has interfered with his professional and personal activities. He stated that on two occasions he was denied authorization to leave the country, and a third request made November 24, 2005 was never answered. He also stated that in Venezuela people had never been prevented from leaving the country for opinion-related crimes, but since