7.
On June 5, 2007 the petitioner submitted additional
information, which was remitted to the State on June 21, 2007. In that
same message the Commission reiterated to the State the request to
suspend the effect of the conviction, giving the State five days to reply.
8.
On August 29, 2007 the State submitted a communication
indicating that the respective authorities were collecting information in
order to respond the petition.
9.
ON February 8, 2008 the State submitted information
related to the petition which was remitted to the petitioner on February,
25, 2008.
10.
On February 28, 2008 the petitioner sent information to the
IACHR with files pertaining to different actions taken with regard to the
process of the execution of this judgment. This communication was
sent to the State on April 2, 2008 requesting observation within one
month. At the time of approval of this Report, the State had not
presented its response.
III.
A.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The petitioner

11.
The petitioner and alleged victim stated that on May 23,
2003 he published an article in the newspaper “Así es la Noticia,” in
which he indicated that the then President of the National Assembly,
William Lara, used funds from the Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’
Savings Bank in an improper way. The petitioner showed that the
article reproduced part of a report from the office of the Superintendent
of Savings Banks stating that former Deputy Lara had siphoned
1,701,723,317.25 Bolívars. According to the petitioner, the article
mentions that this alleged irregularity was reported in a message from
the Superintendent of Savings Banks to Mr. William Lara’s office. The
petitioner stated that he was apprised of this information since he was
an attorney for the union and the Retirees Association of the National
Assembly.
12.
The petitioner indicated that, because of the article, on
December 31, 2003 Mr. William Lara filed a criminal complaint against
him in the 36th Criminal Circuit Court of the Caracas Metropolitan Area
for the crime of defamation. He indicated that on January 9, 2004 that
Court deferred jurisdiction to the Criminal Trial Court, without
determining the admissibility of the complaint.

Select target paragraph3