that he was subjected to a preventive detention regime that exceeded the duration established by criminal law, based on a presumption of risk of flight.3 During the time he remained in preventive detention at the headquarters of the former Directorate General of Intelligence and Prevention Services (hereinafter “DISIP”),4 the situation of the presumed victim was not subject to judicial review. In addition, Raúl José Díaz Peña was subject to a trial with a series of irregularities that, it is alleged, resulted in the criminal proceedings lasting approximately five years and two months from the time of his arrest until he was sentenced and convicted. While he was in the State’s custody, he was allegedly subjected to detention conditions that had serious effects on his health, without receiving the medical care that he supposedly required in a timely manner. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the Court should specifically take into consideration the more general problem of the alleged lack of independence and impartiality of some judicial authorities and of the Public Prosecution Service in Venezuela, in order to analyze the way in which these problems were reflected in the instant case. 4. Based on the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare that the State was responsible for violating the following articles of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Raúl José Díaz Peña:       Article 7(1), 7(2) and 7(4) (rights not to be deprived of liberty illegally and to know the reasons for the detention) in relation to Article 1(1); Article 7(1) and 7(3) (right not to be deprived of liberty arbitrarily) in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2; Articles 7(1), 7(5) and 8(2) (right to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released, and presumption of innocence) in relation to Article 1(1); Articles 7(1), 7(6) and 25(1) (rights to recourse to a competent judge or court to decide on the lawfulness of the arrest, and to judicial protection) in relation to Article 1(1); Article 8(1) (right to be judged within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial judge or court) in relation to Article 1(1), and Article 5(1) and 5(2) (right to humane treatment) in relation to Article 1(1). Consequently, the Commission asked that the State be ordered to adopt specific measures of reparation. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. The Commission’s submission of the case was notified to the representative and to the State on December 22 and 23, 2010, respectively. 6. On February 21, 2011, Patricia Andrade of the Venezuela Awareness Foundation, representative of the presumed victim (hereinafter “the representative”), forwarded her brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), in accordance with Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. In general, the representative agreed with the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission, and asked that the Court order the State to adopt different measures of reparation and pay the procedural expenses and costs. 3 The first paragraph of article 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that “[r]isk of flight shall be presumed in cases of unlawful acts, punished by imprisonment for a maximum of ten years or more.” 4 At the end of 2009, this became the Bolivarian National Intelligence System (SEBIN). 4