intellectual author or actual drafter of the so-called “Carmona Decree.”6 They indicate that such speculation was publicly refuted by Allan Brewer Carías.7 11. They indicate that the National Assembly designated a “Special Parliamentary Commission to investigate the events of April 2002.” In its August 2002 report this Special Commission urged that part of the government designated the Poder Ciudadano to investigate and determine the responsibilities of citizens “…who, without being vested with public functions, acted in an active and coordinated fashion in the conspiracy and coup d’etat.” The list of citizens to be investigated includes Allan Brewer Carías “as his participation in the planning and execution of the coup d’etat has been shown….” 2. Facts related to the judicial proceeding 12. The petitioners allege that from 2002 to 2005 at least four provisional prosecutors investigated the facts around the drafting of the “Carmona Decree,” among other facts related to the events of April 11 to 13, 2002. They note that initially the investigation was entrusted to provisional prosecutor José Benigno Rojas, who did not file charges. They indicate that he was replaced by provisional prosecutor Danilo Anderson, who did not file charges either, and who was murdered in November 2004.8 Subsequently, Luisa Ortega Díaz, Sixth Provisional Prosecutor of the Public Ministry at the National Level with Full Jurisdiction (hereinafter also “Sixth Prosecutor”)9, took over the investigation and filed a number of charges. They allege that since then, the pattern of conduct, of both the Public Ministry and the provisional judges who have seen the case, has been to attach value to those aspects of the evidence that may contribute to convicting Allan Brewer Carías and discard those aspects that show his innocence. 13. The petitioners allege that during the investigative stage, the defense counsel for Allan Brewer Carías were unable to obtain a copy of any of the items in the record; rather, they were only allowed to transcribe, by hand, the various documents in the record. They allege, therefore, that they were deprived of a reasonable time and conditions for his defense.10 They argue that during the review of the record, Allan Brewer Carías found that the texts transcribed in the formal indictment (acta de imputación fiscal) did not match the contents of the videos that he considered to be evidence.11 In view of the foregoing, the provisional prosecutor was asked to make a specialized technical transcription of the content of all the videos with interviews by Triángulo (Televén), May 10, 2002; ProgramVoces de un país of Luis García Figueroa (Globovisión), May 28, 2002. Formal indictment of Allan Brewer Carías of January 27, 2005. Annex 5 to the original petition received January 24, 2007. 6 “At the headquarters of the Army Command, zone reserved for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pedro Carmona had been installed in a cubicle…. In the cubicle across from him was Allan Brewer Carías, drafting by hand what would become the Constitutive Act of the Transition Government…. Brewer Carías replied: ‘The resignation doesn’t matter. Lucas is about to announce it on television and that will be more than sufficient….’” Article from the daily newspaper El Nuevo País, April 16, 2002, by Patricia Poleo. Factores de poder, cited in the formal indictment of Allan Brewer Carías, January 27, 2005, Annex 5 to the original petition received January 24, 2007. 7 The petitioners cited the following press reports: Allan Brewer Carías responde a las acusaciones: No redacté el decreto de Carmona Estanga, article by Ana Damelis Guzmán, El Globo, Caracas, April 17, 2002, p. 4. El abogado desmiente haber redactado acta constitutiva de gobierno transitorio; Brewer Carías se desmarca de Pedro Carmona Estanga, article by Feliz González Roa Notitarde, Valencia, April 17, 2002 p.13. Brewer Carías: no sé quién redactó el decreto Carmona, article by Jaime Granda, El Nuevo País, April 17, 2002, p. 2. Allan R. Brewer Carías En mi propia defensa. Respuesta preparada con la asistencia de mis defensores Rafael Odremán y León Henrique Cottib contra la infundada acusación fiscal por el supuesto delito de conspiración, Editorial Jurídica Venezolana, Caracas, 2006, p. 192, among others. Original petition received January 24, 2007, pp. 10 and 11 8 See IACHR Press Release 24/04 at http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2004/24.04.htm. 9 Original petition received January 24, 2007, para. 54. They allege that this prosecutor, and 10 other prosecutors, were all assigned trials on political dissidents. At present, Luisa Ortega Díaz is said to be the Attorney General of the Republic. Petitioners’ brief received January 3, 2008, p. 21. 10 The petitioners indicate that at present the trial is before the 25th Court of Control, before which the defense does have access to the record. Nonetheless, they consider that the lack of access in the investigative phase was an irreparable encumbrance. Petitioners’ brief received January 3, 2008, pp. 11 and 12. 11 Brief of Brewer Carias’s defense of May 4, 2005, directed to the Twenty-Fifth Judge of Control, which indicates that after having seen the videos and press articles in the record of the case, they were able to establish the untruthfulness or falsity of the texts, given that in certain parts of the videos used for the indictment what one sees doesn’t correspond to what one hears in the video used, and at the same time to request once again all of the videos contained in the record of the case. Annex 43 to the original petition, received January 24, 2007, para. 118. 3