16 (D) (E) The illegal deprivation of liberty of citizen Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, Minister of the Interior and Justice, on April 12, 2002. Instigating to commit a crime and military disobedience until December 2, 2007 [...]. 81. Regarding the possible restriction of Allan Brewer Carías’s access to the remedies offered by domestic jurisdiction by the temporary status, independence, and impartiality of the judges, the State maintains that, as the Inter-American Court has established, it must be shown that in the specific case, the courts’ decisions were subordinated to matters relating to the temporary status, independence, 20 and impartiality of the judges. 82. The State claims that Allan Brewer Carías, currently a fugitive from justice, and his defense team decided, in a most irresponsible way and based on their opinions and an offer of work from a foreign university, to absent themselves from the criminal trial on the grounds of an alleged lack of trust that, to date, they have not been able to substantiate; furthermore, because they have not obtained positive answers, they seek to break the most basic rules of procedure, in order to avoid not the trial but the preliminary hearing. Finally, it maintains that the credibility of international human rights protection agencies bears a close relation to the observance of the principles of objectivity, impartiality, good faith, and non selectivity. 3. Contentions regarding the right of freedom of expression 83. Regarding the analysis of the alleged violation of the right of freedom of expression at the merits stage, the State maintains that this situation is “one of the most veiled forms of violating the State’s right of defense when groundless claims with no evidence whatsoever are considered, in an attempt to introduce them ‘later’ at the merits stage.” On this point, the State contends that “the petitioners have not presented sufficient evidence to show that the alleged facts could tend to establish a violation.” The State “cannot accept the Commission’s admitting a claim […] when the possibility of the alleged violation has 21 not even been shown […] but merely insinuated through entirely subjective appreciations.” 84. It maintains that it cannot be accused of wanting to silence Allan Brewer Carías’s voice when, even following his indictment, he has made use of his right of free expression and “has continued 22 to refer to Venezuelan State and even his own case in the terms he sees fit.” Venezuela submits that Allan Brewer Carías’s books have been subject to no restrictions, bans, or censorship. It holds that the violation of Allan Brewer Carías’s right of freedom of expression is nonexistent. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS 20 To support its arguments, the State cites: I/A Court H. R., Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment of January 28, 2009, Series C No. 195. Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs No. AGEV/000530 of November 17, 2009, p. 59. 21 22 Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs No. AGEV/000530 of November 17, 2009, p. 49. To support its arguments, the State cites: “La demolición del Estado de derecho y la destrucción de la democracia en Venezuela,” Conference given at the office of the Attorney General of the State of Rio de Janeiro, August 26, 2009; The Citizen’s Access to Constitutional Jurisdiction: Special reference to the Venezuelan system of Judicial Review, Round-table conference of the International Association of Constitutional Law, IACL, on “Challenges to the consolidation of the Rules of Law of Democracy in Latin America. Compared experiences.” Porto de Galinhas, State of Pernambuco, Brazil, August 24, 2009; “El Juez Constitucional al servicio del autoritarismo y la ilegítima mutación de la Constitución: el caso de la Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia de Venezuela (1999-2009).” Notes for seminar address by Prof. Eduardo García de Enterría, Law School of the Complutense University of Madrid, April 1, 2009; Reforma Constitucional, Asamblea Constituyente y Control Judicial Contencioso Administrativo: el caso de Honduras (2009) y el precedente venezolano (1999), New York, July 2009; “Historia. Los sucesos de abril de 2002 y las consecuencias de la renuncia del Presidente Hugo Chávez Frías a la Presidencia de la República,” April 2009; El Juez Constitucional vs. La alternabilidad republicana, 2009. Notes on the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber, of February 3, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the 2008-2009 constitutional amendment process to amend the principle of alternance in government by allowing continuous and indefinite reelection to elected office, to be submitted to referendum on February 15, 2009; “En mi propia defensa,” Ed. Jurídica Venezolana, 2006, and “Mi testimonio ante la Historia.” Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs No. AGEV/000530 of November 17, 2009, pp. 49 and 50.