Judicial preventive detention 62. On January 22, 2004, the Eleventh First Instance Examining Court of the Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area ordered the judicial measure of preventive detention, based on the provisions of articles 25052, 25153 and 25254 of the Procedural Code, together with article 44(1) of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,55 against Raúl José Díaz Peña;56 accordingly, it issued arrest warrant No. 002-04,57 to be sent for execution under note No. 103-04 to the Head of the CICPC Arrests Division.58 The grounds for this were that “the legal requirements of articles 250, 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been met to presume that RAUL JOSE DIAZ PEÑA was implicated in the offenses of PUBLIC INTIMIDATION, defined and sanctioned in article 297 and AGAINST PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS, defined and sanctioned in articles 344, 347 and 355; DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY, defined and sanctioned in articles 475 and 476, MINOR INJURIES, defined and sanctioned in article 418, in relation to article 84(1), PUBLIC PROPERTY established and penalized in articles 475 and 476, and MINOR INJURIES established and penalized en article 418, in relation to article 84(1), all of the Venezuelan Penal Code in force. When your court has issued the warrant, he will be brought before it.” Note FMP-62-0038-04 of the Sixty-second Prosecutor of the Caracas Metropolitan Area addressed to the Eleventh Examining Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area dated January 15, 2004, received on January 19, 2004 (evidence file, tome X, folios 5535 to 5539). 52 Article 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the following requirements for the admissibility of a measure of preventive detention: “[t]he examining judge, at the request of the Public Prosecution Service, may order the preventive detention of the accused provided that the existence of the following has been proved: 1. A punishable act liable to the punishment of deprivation of liberty and the action has not prescribed. 2. Evidence to find that the accused has been the author or an accomplice in the perpetration of a punishable act; 3. A reasonable presumption, owing to the assessment of the circumstances of the specific case, of danger of flight or obstruction of the search for the truth with regard to a specific investigation.” Code of Criminal Procedure (evidence file, tome XXVI, folio 17561). 53 Article 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that “[i]n order to determine the danger of flight, the following circumstances, in particular, shall be taken into account: (1) connections to the country, determined by domicile, usual place of residence, domicile of family, business or employment, and possibilities of leaving the country definitively or remaining hidden; (2) the punishment that could be imposed in the case; (3) the extent of the harm caused; (4) the conduct of the accused during the proceedings, or in a previous proceeding, insofar as it indicates willingness to submit to criminal prosecution; (5) the conduct of the accused prior to the offense. Code of Criminal Procedure (evidence file, tome XXVI, folio 17561). 54 Article 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that “[i]n order to determine the risk of obstruction to discovering the truth, in particular, the genuine suspicion that the accused: (i) will destroy, modify, hide or falsify evidence; (2) exert influence so that co-accused, witnesses, victims or expert witnesses will provide false testimony or behave in a reticent or disloyal manner, or will induce others to act in this way, jeopardizing the investigation, the truth of the facts, and that justice is done.” Code of Criminal Procedure (evidence file, tome XXVI, folio 17561). 55 Article 44 of the Constitution establishes the following: “[p]ersonal liberty is inviolable, consequently: 1. No one may be arrested or detained without a judicial arrest warrant, unless they are discovered in flagrante delicto. In that case, they shall be brought before a judicial authority in no more than forty-eight hours from the moment of detention. They shall be tried in liberty, except for the reasons determined by law, assessed by the judge in each case. The establishment of bail required by law to grant liberty to the person detained shall not result in any tax.” Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (evidence file, tome XXVI, folio 17432 56 Cf. Decision ordering judicial preventive detention issued by the Eleventh First Instance Examining Court of the Judicial District of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on January 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome X, folios 5540 to 5545). 57 Cf. Arrest warrant No. 002-04 of January 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome X, folio 5548). 58 Cf. Note No. 103-04 of January 22, 2004 (evidence file, tome X, folio 5547). 19