the issuance of the Carmona Decree as a pretext for hushing the voice of an important opposition figure, accusing him of having been involved in the coup. In this sense, they consider that the criminal proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of expression, established in Article 13 of the American Convention. 44. With respect to the right to equal protection the law established at Article 24 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that in the proceeding on the conspiracy to violently change the Constitution only civilians, and not members of the military, have been indicated, even though it was the top-level military commanders who were said to have requested the resignation of the Head of State. They indicate that the members of the armed forces initially indicated by the Public Ministry benefited from the constitutional privilege of preliminary proceeding (antejuicio) for the Supreme Court to determine whether there are merits for initiating the trial.34 In that case the Supreme Court considered that there was no basis for going forward with a trial based on the consideration that the events of April 2002 did not constitute a coup d’etat but rather a “power vacuum.” They indicate that subsequently that decision was declared null by the constitutional Chamber but that even when some members of the military were called forth to face indictment, they have not appeared.35 The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the act of discrimination, in violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1). 45. With respect to the right to judicial protection established at Article 25 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that in Venezuela there is no effective judicial remedy for the protection of the rights of Allan Brewer Carías. In this respect, they indicate that Allan Brewer Carías repeatedly turned to the Provisional Judge of Control and to the Court of Appeals in order to have his rights re-established in the course of the proceeding. They allege that in response the courts held that they did not have legal powers to protect his rights, that his pleadings were inopportune36 or that they could not interfere with the autonomy of the Office of the Attorney General in the conduct of the investigation.37 46. Finally, the petitioners allege that the State breached its duty to adopt the measures necessary, legislative or otherwise, to uphold the rights protected in the Convention, in violation of Articles 2 and 1(1). They indicate that the national legislation is not adequate in relation to the appointment and permanence in their posts of judges and prosecutors, to uphold the rights of Allan Brewer Carías and of all Venezuelans to be heard by an independent and impartial court. 4. Arguments on the admissibility of the claim 47. The petitioners argue that the remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction are illusory in view of the general conditions of the country and the circumstances of this case. They consider that the Judiciary lacks independence and impartiality and that in general there is a situation of denial of justice.38 They argue that the Commission has already established, in other cases, that the victim does not have domestic remedies in a situation of “dysfunctional judiciary unable to resolve his situation,” which occurs, among others situations, when its corruption or lack of independence is established.39 The petitioners also cite considerations of the IACHR regarding the impact of the permanence of a high percentage of provisional judges on the independence of the Judiciary in Venezuela.40 They also question the election of the magistrates of the Supreme They indicate that the right to a preliminary proceeding (derecho de antejuicio) is established in Article 266 of the Constitution of Venezuela. Original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 148. 35 They indicate that the General in Chief of the Army, Lucas Rincón Gutiérrez, who announced in April 2002 that the military high command had sought the resignation of the President of the Republic, has not been subjected to any investigation. Original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 149. 36 Decision of the Court of Control of May 11, 2005. Annex 44 to the original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 125. 37 Original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 124. 38 The petitioners cite I/A Court H.R. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency. OC 9-87, October 6, 1987. Series C. No. 9, para. 24 and Case of Bámaca González (sic). Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C. No. 70, para. 191. Original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 157. 39 The petitioners cite Report 5/94 (Elvis Lovato Rivera) Annual Report of the IACHR, 1993, consideration No.5, paras.f and h, pp. 187 ff. 40 The petitioners cite the Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela adopted December 29, 2003, page 3. 34 10