4 Chamber of the Court of Appeals. On January 31, 2005, the Chamber of Appeals revoked that order. On February 3, 2005, the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice suspended the judges of the Court of Appeals who voted for the nullity of the decision appealed, as well as Temporary Judge Josefina Gómez Sosa, for not having stated sufficient grounds to support the order prohibiting exit from the country. Judge Gómez Sosa was replaced by Judge of Control Manuel Bognanno, also temporary. They allege that he was suspended from his position on June 29, 2005, after notifying the Superior Prosecutor, June 27, 2005, of alleged irregularities in the investigation conducted by the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor. 18. The petitioners say that on May 4, 2005, the defense asked the Temporary Twenty-Fifth Judge to show all the videos, admit the testimony offered, and allow access to the copies of the record. In response the judge ordered the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor to allow the defense full access to the record and any videos that might be germane to the case. Nonetheless, he decided that it was not up to him to rule on the relevance of the testimony offered by the defense. On May 16, 2005, the defense appealed to the Court of Appeals the decision of the Temporary Twenty-Fifth Judge not to rule on the relevance of the testimony offered. 19. They also indicate that the defense also introduced Allan Brewer Carías’s immigration record into the evidence to show that during the weeks prior to April 12, 2002, he was outside the country, and therefore he couldn’t have conspired to violently change the Constitution. They indicate that on May 9, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor rejected the evidence, considering it unnecessary. 20. On May 30, 2005, the Office of the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor sought a declaration of nullity of the decision by the Temporary Twenty-Fifth Judge of granting total access to the case file, on the grounds that no notice had been given of the brief filed by the defense, accordingly it had not had an opportunity to defend itself. On July 6, 2005, the Court of Appeals found null and void the decision by the Temporary Twenty-Fifth Judge not to rule on the relevance of the testimony offered and ordered that another judge of control rule on the defense’s brief. On August 10, 2005, the defense filed a brief with the Temporary Twenty-Fifth Judge insisting on admission of the testimony offered and on compliance with the decision of the Court of Appeals. 21. They add that on September 30, 2005, the defense submitted a brief for anticipated production of evidence in the form of a statement by Pedro Carmona Estanga before the Temporary Twenty-Fifth Judge. On October 20, 2005, the request was declared unfounded on the grounds that Pedro Carmona Estanga was also being indicted in the case, so his statement would have not probative value. They indicate: that they once again filed the statement by Pedro Carmona; that it was rejected by the same judge, that they filed a motion of recusal against him for having issued an opinion once again on the same issue; and that the motion for recusal was rejected based on the judge not having issued a pronouncement on the guilt or innocence of Allan Brewer Carías. They note that finally they submitted the statement by Pedro Carmona in writing and they allege that he has been “ignored” by the judge. In addition, they argue that a paragraph was quoted from the book by Pedro Carmona Estanga in the accusation against Allan Brewer Carías without taking into account another paragraph of the same book in which Pedro Carmona notes that he had never attributed the authorship of the decree in question to him. 22. They note that by discretional and arbitrary decision of the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor, the defense of Allan Brewer Carías was not allowed to be present in the examination of the witnesses called to testify before her. They indicate that in some cases the prosecutor admitted questions in writing, but it was not possible to present them in the case of supervening witnesses who came forward in the course of the investigation and who gave statements 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. 23. They argue that the testimony offered by journalist and politician Jorge Olavarría in support of Allan Brewer Carías’s innocence was not taken into account and that, on the contrary, it was considered as part of the basis for the indictment. They hold that on October 21, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor formalized the indictment against Allan Brewer Carías and the proceeding went on