Venezuela. The State points out that the assumption of power by Pedro Carmona during that time cannot be justified by an alleged “power vacuum” since the Venezuelan Constitution establishes that the Executive Vice President of the Republic is the official stand-in for the President of the Republic in the various hypotheses regarding permanent or temporary absence from office contemplated in Articles 233 and 234 of this instrument. The State further contends that even if the Constitution did not establish the line of succession to assume the powers of office when the president is absent, it would be up to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to determine the proper procedure to be followed. 53. The State emphasizes that the Constitution does not allow for the “illegal assumption of the office” nor does it establish that a Decree of Transition can become a mechanism to repeal the Constitution or to fill the void created by the absence of the President of the Republic.45 The State points out that the decree adopted within the context of the events of April 12th and 13th, 2002, intended to empower the President of the de facto Junta to reorganize the “Powers of the State” without establishing any limits to the nature of its powers, their scope or their duration. 54. The State points out that the petition makes clear that Allan Brewer Carías knew of the existence and content of the decree in question and that he went to the Miraflores Palace to give Pedro Carmona his opinion. The State rejects the petitioners’ allegation that Allan Brewer Carías disagreed with the content of the decree which would have been unconstitutional even if its content had been different. Therefore, the State questions the notion that if Allan Brewer Carías’ opinion had been heard and considered, the decree would have been moderately unconstitutional rather than manifestly unconstitutional. 55. The State contends that even though he knew the content of the decree, Allan Brewer Carías did not repudiate its adoption as any defender of the Constitution and of democracy should have done. The State points out that Article 333 of the Constitution establishes that in the event that the instrument is repealed by an act of force or by any means other than those provided for in the same Constitution, it is the duty of every person with or without vested official authority to help return it into actual effect. The State also alleges that although Allan Brewer Carias considers himself “a dissident of authoritarian policies,” he did not denounce the establishment of a de facto government that concentrated all power in the hands of one person, that changed the name of the Republic and that dissolved all constituted authorities. 56. The State contends that those who guided the coup d’état used the Inter-American Democratic Charter as the basis and grounds to promote an unconstitutional and anti-democratic decree.46 It points out that the Inter-American Charter establishes principles and mechanisms aimed at protecting the democratic institutions of the States, not at rendering their Constitutions powerless. The State further contends that the constitutional law expert Allan Brewer Carías did not denounce this abuse of the provisions of the Inter-American Charter either. The State indicates that Constitutional Article 233 considers the President of the Republic to be permanently unavailable by reason of any of the following: death; resignation; removal from office by decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice; permanent physical or mental disability certified by a medical board designated by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and with the approval of the National Assembly; abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly; and recall by popular vote. Article 234 establishes that temporary unavailability shall be replaced by the Executive Vice-President for a period of up to ninety days, which may be extended by resolution of the National Assembly for an additional ninety days. If the unavailability continues, the National Assembly shall have the power to decide whether the unavailability to serve should be considered permanent. Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 on August 25, 2009, page 12. 46 The State indicates that Article 3 of the Inter-American Charter establishes that: “Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” The State argues that the InterAmerican Democratic Charter recalled that the OAS Charter, which ordered the IACHR to be established, recognized that representative democracy is indispensable for the stability, peace and development of the region and that one of the OAS's proposals is to promote and consolidate representative democracy. In this respect, the Chiefs of State and Government of the Americas, gathered at the Third Summit of the Americas, which took place from April 20 to 22, 2001, established that any unconstitutional alteration or interruption to the democratic order of a State in the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that State's government. Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 on August 25, 2009, pages 14 and 15. 45 12