77 ejusdem, which is the basis for this private prosecution. The Court finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant was the alleged perpetrator or participant in the commission of said crime, given the evidence presented by the complainant. The Court additionally finds a reasonable presumption that the defendant is a flight risk, based on the assessment of the circumstances of this particular case, and given his ability to leave the country permanently. These findings are based on the arguments set forth, and on Article 13 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, which aims to establish the truth of the facts through legal channels and justice in the application of the law […] in accordance with Article 256(4) of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure.21 34. Trial hearings were subsequently held on January 13 and 18, 2005. The trial was then continued due to the amendment of the plaintiff’s complaint,22 which alleged that the victim had continued to defame Congressman Lara in interviews disseminated on Venezuelan social media before the trial began.23 35. The trial resumed on January 25, 2005, and then was once again continued, due to the alleged victim’s health,24 to February 3, 9, and 10, 2005.25 During those hearings, the defense filed several motions and requested the nullification of the proceedings because of procedural error and the expiration of the statute of limitations. During the trial on February 3, 2005, defense witness José Rafael García, President of the Retirees and Pensioners Association of the National Assembly, was detained for the alleged in flagrante commission of perjury and the commission of a crime during a hearing. He was transferred to a detention center at the request of the prosecuting party.26 36. On February 10, 2005, the Trial Court handed down its judgment of conviction, sentencing the accused to 2 years and 3 months in prison. It also found that the motions were untimely filed and therefore inadmissible. In view of this decision, the petitioner filed a petition for a constitutional remedy [amparo] before the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, requesting the absolute nullity of the hearings held.27 In its judgment of February 11, 2005, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals ruled the amparo action inadmissible, on grounds that “It follows from a reading of the petition for a constitutional remedy that the petitioner could avail himself of the ordinary courts, as, according to his brief, [his case] is at the trial phase and a judgment has not been issued by the trial court. Accordingly, he can file an ordinary motion for appeal if his arguments are not heard, and it is through an ordinary appeal that the 21 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006. 22 Article 351. Amendment of the complaint. During oral argument, and prior to the closing arguments of the parties, the Public Ministry or the complainant may amend the complaint through the inclusion of a new fact or circumstance that has not been mentioned and that changes the legal classification of or penalty for the act at issue in the oral argument. The complainant may join the Prosecutor’s amendment to the complaint, and the Prosecutor may include the new evidence in the amendment of his or her complaint. In such case, a new statement will be taken from the defendant in relation to the new facts or circumstances alleged in the amended complaint, and all of the parties will be informed. The parties will have the right to request a stay of the trial proceedings in order to offer new evidence or prepare their defense. When this right is asserted, the court will suspend oral argument for a reasonable period of time, according to the nature of the facts and the needs of the defense. The new facts or circumstances addressed in the amendment will be included in the order to stand trial. Cfr. Organic Code of Criminal Procedure and the amendments thereto. National Assembly the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Title II. Trial. Chapter II. Trial Proceedings. Section One. Preparation of Oral Argument. Art. 351. October 2, 2001. 23 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006. 24 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006. 25 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006. 26 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006. 27 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006.