7 that the office of the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof by requiring the defense to disprove the accusation that it leveled at Allan Brewer Carías.9 34. In addition, they allege that the requests for arrest warrants sent to INTERPOL were manifestly inadequate and abusive given that the crime of which Allan Brewer Carías is charged is a typical pure political crime, and Article 3 of the INTERPOL Constitution prohibits it from engaging in “any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character.” They consider that the determination by the domestic courts that the conduct imputed to Brewer Carías constitutes a common crime is “... an arbitrary maneuver that changes the legal characterization of the crime imputed, constitutes violations of due process. They also hold that the requests for arrest warrants violate the principle of the presumption of innocence. 35. In addition, they argue that entities such as the National Assembly, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, as well as members of the diplomatic corps made public statements on the scope of the conduct of which Brewer Carías is accused and his alleged guilt. 36. As for the National Assembly, they contend that in the report of the “Special Parliamentary Commission to investigate the events of April 2002” it has been shown that Allan Brewer Carías participated in conduct from which he was afforded no opportunity to defend himself. In the case of the Supreme Court of Justice, they allege that the court made a prejudgment by indicating in writing that “the publicly known testimony of numerous witnesses identifies Allan Brewer-Carías as one of the authors of the decree in question.” They allege that the Attorney General of the Republic also prejudged Allan Brewer Carías’ guilt in his book “Abril Comienza en Octubre,” in which he assumes as true certain assertions made in the media that were under investigation by his office, and which were never ratified with testimony or corroborated. Finally, they say that members of the diplomatic corps publicly referred to Allan Brewer Carías as a “conspirator” and “author of the April 12 Decree,” which conduct imputed to him without evidence or any judicial finding of guilt. 37. With respect to the right of the accused to have adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense, as established at Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that during the investigative stage Allan Brewer Carías’s defense counsel were unable to obtain a copy of any part of the record; rather, they were only allowed, personally, to transcribe manually the various documents in the record, which ran to thousands of pages in 27 sections. They say that this refusal to issue copies was an obstruction of the right to defense, without any reasonable grounds, and deprived Allan Brewer Carías and his attorneys of a reasonable time and conditions for his defense. They argue that the right to be afforded the necessary facilities to mount a defense is a fundamental element of due process, which was denied to Allan Brewer Carías. 38. With respect to the right of the defense to examine witnesses and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts, as established in Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that Allan Brewer Carías’s defense was not allowed to be present during the examination of the witnesses called to testify by the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor. In this regard, they hold that the defense was arbitrarily refused requests to produce proof or evidence to protect the rights of Allan Brewer Carías. They 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 9 In this regard, the petitioners note that the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor plainly showed that, to her mind, it was up to the accused to disprove the charges, since she said -in the trial of another person indicted in the same proceedings- before the Twentieth Court of Control that “in the opinion of the Public Ministry the accusation made against […] meets the legal requirements, and therefore, in any event it is up to his defense to prove otherwise. Why is it assumed that he did not conspire? The reasons why he accompanied citizen Allana [sic] Brewer Carias on the day of the events? What objections or opposition did he offer to the drafting of the decree? The lack of response and evidence to disprove the justified suspicions of the Public Ministry regarding his participation in the drafting of the decree are the reasons why it is considered unnecessary to elaborate on the indictment, since, in the opinion of the Public Ministry, they have not shown that he was not involved […]”. The petitioners cite the brief of the Provisional Prosecutor of the Sixth Court of Control, dated June 3, 2005. Annex 18 to the original petition received January 24, 2007.