this precedent was set, the same measure was imposed on the editor of the newspaper “Así es la Noticia,” Mrs. Ibéyise Pacheco. 21. The petitioner also argued that he never had the opportunity to defend himself appropriately during hearings held throughout the trial. He specifically indicated that in one of the hearings the charges were increased, without giving him sufficient time to prepare his defense. He also said that at a hearing on February 3, 2004, while a witness was explaining how he had obtained the report from the Superintendent of Savings Banks, the hearing judge ordered that the witness be detained and accused him of committing “a hearing crime” as described in Article 345 of the COPP, and of perjury, as described in Article 243 of the Criminal Code. He asserted that said order was based on documents previously submitted by the complainant’s attorney, to which the defendant never had access. 22. The petitioner further indicated that during the trial and in order to prove his innocence, he asked the trial judge to order the competent agencies to produce their reports, in order to certify the existence of the documents mentioned in the article which led to the complaint. The petitioner affirmed that this request was ruled inadmissible for being irrelevant and unnecessary. He further indicated that other evidentiary procedures were denied by the trial judge. 23. The petitioner also alleged that on the morning of January 26, 2005, a few hours before leaving to testify in one of the oral hearings of his criminal trial, he fell ill with a bad headache and severely high blood pressure, and was told to rest immediately. He states that in light of the situation, his attorney asked the trial judge to suspend the proceedings. He added that the same day the complainant requested copies of that request from the judge, who then ordered a legal medical examination of the defendant. Based on that order, the next day a commission from the Judicial Police comprised of several patrol officers showed up at the homes of his relatives and his office. In the petitioner’s view, this constitutes a violation of his right to privacy. 24. The petitioner asserted that the measure preventing him from leaving the country, as well as the criminal conviction, are reprisals for his involvement in public affairs, particularly in defense of the environment, indigenous communities, and human rights. He also indicated that in 2000 he filed criminal charges against the President of Venezuela for alleged improprieties in the financing of his electoral campaign; in 2001 and 2002 he requested the nullification of an agreement signed by the government to supply other countries with