indicate that in some cases the Prosecutor admitted questions in writing, but that it was not possible to submit them in the case of supervening witnesses who came forward in the course of the investigation and gave their testimony in secret. They note specifically that on October 5, 2005, testimony was taken from General Lucas Rincón, without the defense having been given called or given notice. In addition, they argue that the ten journalists who disseminated the “notorious communicational events” that were the basis for the indictment were not called to ratify their assertions. They note that on being called by the defense of Allan Brewer Carías, they said that they had not been witnesses to the facts, thus the petitioners consider inadmissible the referential evidence that was the basis for indicting Allan Brewer Carías. 39. As for the appearance of the witnesses offered by the defense, they allege that on April 21, 2004, the Sixth Prosecutor rejected the testimony of Nelson Mezerhane, Nelson Socorro, Yajaira Andueza, Guaicaipuro Lameda, and Leopoldo Baptista on the grounds that they were referential witnesses whose testimony lacked any evidentiary value under the rules in place. In addition, they allege that they were denied the anticipated filing of the statement by Pedro Carmona Estanga, and that as it had been submitted in writing, it had likely been “ignored.” 40. With respect to the rights to personal security and movement and residence, established at Articles 7 and 22 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that the arrest warrant for Allan Brewer Carías implies that he can no longer return to his country without subjecting himself to preventive detention in violation of his right to the presumption of innocence. In addition, they suggest that the absence of a decision on the request for an anticipated declaration of the unlawfulness of the deprivation of liberty during the trial, filed by Allan Brewer Carías, made it necessary for him to take measures to ensure his own personal liberty and security, and leave the country. They allege that even though Allan Brewer Carías has not been detained, he is subject to international persecution and harassment that limits his freedom of movement, and that keeps him from returning to his country without running the risk of being detained so as to face a criminal proceeding in which he does not enjoy the proper guarantees. They allege that because of this harassment, he has been compelled to miss 17 important academic events to which he was invited.32 41. They consider that in cases of political persecution, international law comes to the aid of one who seeks to protect himself or herself from the state in question. They indicate that this is the ultimate foundation of asylum and refuge as legal institutions. They allege that one who is persecuted has a right not to be returned to his persecutors, to the point that international law imposes on a state that denies refuge or asylum a legal duty not to return the victim to the jurisdiction of the state that is persecuting him, by means of the rule known as non-refoulement. 42. As regards the right to honor and dignity established in Article 11 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that the declarations of government representatives with respect to criminal acts not judicially proven affect the honor of Allan Brewer Carías and threaten the principle of independence of the judiciary. They consider that in the instant case the systematic accusations of “golpista” (“coup-monger” or “coup leader”) leveled at Allan Brewer Carías and attributing to him the authorship of the decree in question harmed his reputation and prestige as a constitutional law expert and university professor. In this respect, they allege that the pronouncements of State organs such as the National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Attorney General of the Republic, and the embassies of Venezuela in the Dominican Republic and Costa Rica are violations of the right to honor and dignity of Allan Brewer Carías and show that the investigation as a whole violates Article 11 of the American Convention.33 43. With respect to the right to freedom of expression established in Article 13 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that because of Allan Brewer Carías’s open dissidence with the policies of the government, some journalists presumed that he was associated with the establishment of the so-called “transition government.” They allege that the government and its institutions have used the mere presence of Allan Brewer Carías at “Fort Tiuna” on the eve of List of events, Annex 59 to the petitioners’ brief received January 3, 2008, p. 20. The petitioners cite IACHR. Gallardo Rodríguez, Case 11,430 OAS/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev., para. 76. Original petition received January 24, 2007, paras. 135 and 136. 32 33 9