6 authorities, have submitted to criminal proceedings, and have been tried and convicted,” includes, among the conduct eligible for amnesty, “the drafting of the decree of the de facto government of April (12), 2002.” The request was denied on January 25, 2008, on the grounds that Allan Brewer Carías had not appeared in the proceeding. The petitioners note that the decision was appealed to the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas and denied on April 3, 2008. 3. Submissions on violation of the American Convention 29. The petitioners claim that the State is responsible for violation of the rights set forth in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 13, 25, 1(1), and 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Allan Brewer Carías. 30. As regards the right to a hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal recognized at Article 8(1) of the American Convention, the petitioners argue that the prosecutors and judges who acted in the charges and indictment brought against Brewer Carías are provisional officials, and that they have been replaced whenever their decisions were not “to the liking of the persecutors.” They hold that the provisional nature of judges and prosecutors violates the guarantee of independence and impartiality set forth at Article 8 of the American Convention insofar as they do not enjoy tenure in their position and can be freely removed or suspended. 31. They claim that the Venezuelan judicial system is fettered by a relationship of chronic dependence as a result of the endemic problem of the provisional status of judges and prosecutors. In this regard, they provide a detailed analysis of the provisional status of judges in Venezuela since August 1999, when the reorganization of the judiciary began, initially under the supervision of the Judicial Emergency Commission and later, another judicial reorganization commission. At present the process is being implemented by the Office of the Executive Director of the Magistrature. They argue that the main effects of this indefinite process of “perpetual reorganization” is the provisionality of judicial appointments, the abandonment of competitive selection as outlined in the Constitution, and a complete lack of tenure for judges who are ultimately subject to free appointment and removal by the Commission of the day. They say that a similar situation exists for prosecutors. 32. As regards the way in which this alleged situation of lack of tenure and independence among judges and prosecutors has affected the judicial proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías, they hold that this process of reorganization with free appointment and removal of judges and prosecutors was in place before the criminal proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías was instituted and that it continues at present. Furthermore, two lower court judges and two members of the Court of Appeals were dismissed in connection with, or immediately after having adopted, decisions that could be considered favorable to Allan Brewer Carías. They allege that the decisions ordering those dismissals were discretionary, without due process for those concerned and without disclosure, at least in the case of Judge Bognanno, of the formal grounds that might have justified their termination. They argue that the lack of tenure, coupled with the openly political bias with which the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor has acted throughout have been factors that have resulted in patent procedural violations and left Allan Brewer Carías defenseless. They also say that this situation has an “exemplary effect” given the contrast between the punishment of provisional judges who have ruled in favor of the accused in this case, and the reward for the political loyalty shown by the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor, who, not long after filing multiple indictments in criminal proceedings with political implications, was promoted to Director General of Prosecutions of the Public Ministry and currently holds the position of Attorney General. 33. With respect to the right of all persons accused of a criminal offense to be presumed innocent so long as their guilt has not been proven according to law, as recognized in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, the petitioners argue that a proceeding was begun against Allan Brewer Carías based on a “well-known fact widely reported by the media,” even though he refuted the information that appeared in the press. The petitioners argue that according to the case-law of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela, a “well-known fact widely reported by the media” only occurs when there is news disseminated by the media that has not been refuted. They also argue