37 allows for preventive imprisonment in the cases where the court deems it pertinent, and on the other hand, typifies as crime insulting against the Armed Forces and considers a punishment of three to eight years in prison. In addition, the State observed “that the decision of May 24 and 27, 2004[, as well as the decision of June 15, 2004 where Mr. Usón’s liberty was declared inapplicable] were motivated not only by an element of presumed danger of escape, but also on the grounds of constitutional and jurisprudential order���. In addition, the State alleged that “the preventive detention [of Mr. Uson Ramirez] up to his final judgment did not even reach half of the minimum sanction of three years set forth in article 505 of the Organic Code of Military Justice.” Likewise, the State alleged that “in his detention, presentation, and decision on the preventive measures of deprivation of liberty there were no undue delays”. Specifically, the State indicated that “a situation of procedural prerogative as in the case of General Francisco Usón Ramírez was resolved in two days in a motivated manner[…]; General Usón had a Pre-trial Merit which meant, in any case, a special protection that is not given to all Venezuelan citizens”. Therefore, according to the State, his deprivation of liberty was neither illegal nor arbitrary. 137. Taking into account the proof alleged, this Tribunal considers it has been demonstrated that on May 10, 2004 the Minister of Defense ordered, “to start a Military Criminal Investigation, in accordance with article 55 of the Military Justice Organic Code […]126 in relation to the alleged Punishable Facts of a Military Nature, on the occasion of the statements made by [Mr. Usón Ramírez].”127 The next day, the Higher Military Attorney in the Jurisdiction of the Permanent War Council of Caracas agreed “to start the investigation” in relation to Article 505 COJM.128 138. On May 21, 2004 the Military Attorney submitted a brief to the First Military Tribunal of Permanent First Instance of La Guaira, whereby the Military Attorney requested a provisional remedy of deprivation of liberty against Mr. Usón Ramírez, Then, the First Military Court of First Instance issued an Order of Arrest against Mr. Usón Ramírez and decreed his preventive detention “on the basis of the assumption of having committed a crime established in article 505 of the Military Justice Organic Code and because there is evidence of the danger of escape, based on the provisions of article 49 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in agreement with article 250 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedural.”129 In this regard, the police record indicates that when detained, Mr. Usón Ramírez was informed of “his legal situation related to the order of arrest” 130 which, if it did refer to the authority which made the order, it did not make reference to facts of the 126 Article 55 of the Organic Code of Military Justice indicates the following: [[t]hey are attributions of the Minister of Defense, as an agent of Military Justice: 1º - [t]o give the order to proceed with military trials not attributed by this Code to another judicial agent […].” 127 Cf. Order No. MD-SG-2004/222 of the Ministry of Defense on May 10, 2004, supra note 103. 128 Cf. transcript No. FM-005-2004 of May 11, 2004 of the Military Prosecutor Superior in the jurisdiction of Consejo de Guerra of Caracas (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 32, f. 1101). 129 Order of Arrest of May 21, 2004 of Military Court of First Instance of la Guaira. (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 34, f. 1110). Article 250 of the Organic Criminal, as applied in the present case, a judicial order of preventive detention may proceed when three conditions are established: “1) [a] punishable fact that deserves the deprivation of liberty; 2) [w]ell grounded conviction elements to consider that the accused has been the author or has participated in a punishable fact[, and] 3) [a] reasonable presumption, upon consideration of the circumstances of a particular case, of danger of escape or hindrance in the search for truth regarding a specific investigation […] 130 Police file of May 21, 2004 of the National Guard of Venezuela (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 36, f. 1119).