his position under the same conditions as his adversary. For instance, he reported that he was unable to access the videos of the interviews he reportedly gave to media outlets, submitted by the prosecution in support of the accusations against him. He also stated that the court ruled inadmissible the evidence resulting from information provided by government agencies at the court’s request for purposes of verifying the existence of the document referring to the irregularities of the National Assembly’s Savings Bank. 18. The petitioner similarly asserted that while one of his witnesses—the President of the Retirees and Pensioners Association of the National Assembly—was testifying at the February 3, 2005 hearing, the opposing party requested the immediate arrest of the witness for perjury and the commission of a crime during a hearing. The petitioner explained that, in practice, this charge entails the advance impeachment of the witness, to the detriment of the defense. The petitioner indicated that the witness was indeed prosecuted, and it was not until months later that the Venezuelan courts found him innocent and dismissed the case. The petitioner stated that this witness had been testifying about how he obtained the report of the Office of the Superintendent of Savings Banks, which had been received by the Office of the President of the National Assembly and provided an account of the irregularities committed at the National Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’ Savings Bank. B. Position of the State 19. The Venezuelan State maintained that it had acted in accordance with the law in the case of Tulio Álvarez, and that there had been no violation of his human rights. It indicated that former Congressman Willian Lara brought a criminal defamation case pursuant to Article 444 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code, and that the constitutional right to one’s honor and reputation is established in Article 60 of the Venezuelan Constitution. According to the State, the legal action was filed after the petitioner—an attorney and columnist for the newspaper Así es la Noticia—published a defamatory opinion piece against the congressman. 20. The State specified that the right to honor and reputation under Venezuelan law “is an absolute, unlimited right that takes priority over any other law any other right not considered equal in status.” In this regard, it stated that the right to freedom of opinion is also a right that has constitutional status but is not absolute; it is limited insofar as the person exercising the right assumes full responsibility for what is expressed. 21. The State indicated that the legal action filed by former Congressman Willian Lara on December 31, 2003 is a private action, in which the victim, rather than the Public Ministry, must pursue the criminal action. It stated that 6 months lapsed from the date the criminal complaint was filed and the defendant, Tulio Álvarez, received notice and named defense attorneys. It asserted that four months later, on October 26 and 29, the petitioner’s lawyers went before the court to note their appearance as counsel. It also reported that the conciliation hearing was unsuccessful. The State indicated that on January 13, 2005, the public hearing was held at which the prosecution attorneys amended the complaint to allege that the crime was ongoing. According to the State, this was because on December 27, 2004, and January 9, 2005, the petitioner once again expressed “public contempt and public hatred” against Willian Lara. The State indicated that the petitioner was afforded the right to a defense and access to the evidence. 22. According to the State, the testimony of National Treasurer Carmen De Maniglia confirmed that there had been a delay in the employer contributions to the National Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’ Savings Bank due to the 2002 coup d’état and the 2003 oil strike, which prevented the allocation of sufficient funds to the National Treasury to honor all of the State’s commitments. Nevertheless, the State maintains that it was proved during the trial that payment orders were issued, and that the delay was not only at the Savings Bank but in all government banks. The State confirmed that, because of this, the petitioner was sentenced to two years and three months in jail, although he was never arrested due to his attorneys’ request for the conditional suspension of the execution of the sentence, and the express request made by the Inter-American Commission to the State. 23. With regard to the measure prohibiting the petitioner from traveling outside the country, the State reported that the court authorities agreed to suspend the restriction for the duration of his probation. To that