father, in order to carry out “the forensic tests” required.43 He was also summoned to testify before the Scientific, Criminal and Forensic Investigations Unit (hereinafter “CICPC”)44 and before the former DISIP45 on September 11, 2003, before the CICPC on September 12, 2003,46 and before the Directorate for Counter-terrorism Investigations on December 4, 2003.47 In addition, it is recorded that he appeared before the CICPC on September 12, 2003, to testify about the incidents under investigation.48 C) Arrest, judicial preventive detention, and criminal proceedings 60. Based on the statements taken during the said investigation and the results of the appraisal carried out on the pickup truck,49 on October 6, 2003, the CICPC called upon the prosecutors in charge of the investigations to process an arrest warrant and search order against Mr. Díaz Peña before the corresponding Examining Court.50 61. Consequently, on January 19, 2004, the then Sixty-second Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of the Caracas Metropolitan Area asked the Eleventh Examining Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area to issue an arrest warrant against Raúl José Díaz Peña, because “[d]uring the investigations it ha[d] been determined that RAUL JOSE DIAZ PEÑA [had been] aware of the planning of the terrorist attacks on the said diplomatic premises.”51 43 Authorization to seize the yellow Toyota truck, model Samuray, license plate ATJ-706 issued by the Twenty-second First Instance Examining Judge of September 9, 2003 (file of proceedings before the Inter-American Commission, tome II, folio 1023); Record of interview with Raúl José Díaz Peña by the Homicide Investigation Division on September 12, 2003 (evidence file, tome X, folios 5458 to 5463) and Testimony given by Raúl José Díaz Peña by electronic audiovisual means before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing held on December 1, 2011. 44 Cf. CICPC summons of September 10, 2003, to appear on September 11, 2003 (evidence file, tome V, folio 2719). 45 Cf. Summons of September 10, 2003 (evidence file, tome V, folio 2721). 46 Cf. DISIP summons of September 10, 2003, to appear on September 11, 2003 (evidence file, tome V, folio 2721). 47 Cf. CICPC summons of September 11, 2003, to appear on September 12, 2003 (evidence file, tome V, folio 2722). 48 Cf. Record of interview with Raúl José Díaz Peña by the Homicide Investigation Division on September 12, 2003 (evidence file, tome X, folios 5458 to 5463). 49 The representative questioned the appraisal performed on the pickup truck, insisting on the “irregularities in the procedures of seizure, inspection and appraisal conducted on the yellow Toyota, Samuray, license plate ATJ-706, which “produced” results that implicated Raúl Díaz.” The Court will not rule on this issue because it does not form part of the facts that are the purpose of the dispute in the instant case (supra para. 46), although the Court takes note that the results of this appraisal, among other elements, are the basis for committing Mr. Díaz Peña to trial, and that Mr. Díaz Peña’s defense counsel requested its annulment (infra para 73). 50 Cf. Police record of October 6, 2003 (evidence file, tome X, folios 5455 to 5457). 51 The Prosecutor indicated that the grounds for the request were: “On the basis of the provisions of articles 250, 251 and 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this requests meets the requirements for admissibility of the measure requested, which are listed below: 1. Punishable acts, Against Persons, Against the Preservation of Public and Private Interests, and Against Public Order are liable to the punishment of deprivation of liberty, and the action has evidently not prescribed. 2. The evidence from which it is inferred that the accused was an accomplice in the punishable act is provided in chapter III of this brief. 3. Certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused may escape owing to the punishment liable to be imposed. All these concurring elements uphold the admissibility of this application, and are the reason why it is requested that a JUDICIAL ARREST WARRANT be issued against citizen: RAUL JOSE DIAZ PEÑA, identified above, because the requirements established in the norm to prove that the said citizen was truly an accomplice in the offenses of CONSPIRACY, established and penalized in article 287, PUBLIC INTIMIDATION, established and penalized in article 297 and AGAINST THE PRESERVATION OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTERESTS established and penalized in articles 344, 347 and 355, DAMAGE TO 18