Said court issued a decision30 acknowledging receipt of the case file from the Registration and Distribution Unit, and, based on Articles 407 and 401 clauses 1, 2 and 5 of Venezuela’s Organic Code of Criminal Procedure,31 ordered the complainant to satisfy the requirements for a private prosecution, within a period of five days, in compliance with those articles of the Code. 41. On January 20, 2004, Mr. Lara complied with the order issued by the Seventh Trial Court.32 B. Conciliation hearing and the precautionary measure barring travel outside the country 42. Having admitted and ratified the private prosecution brought by Mr. Lara against Mr. Álvarez for the alleged crime of defamation, the Seventh Court issued a decision on November 2, 2004,33 ordering a conciliation hearing on November 25, 2004, at 11:00 a.m. The hearing was deferred until December 15, 2004.34 43. The conciliation hearing35 took place on December 15, 2004; however, the disputing parties did not reach an agreement.36 Furthermore, the judge decided, among other things, to grant the plaintiff’s request37 to impose a measure barring Tulio Álvarez from leaving the country (which resulted in the decision of December 16, 2004 38) and to admit the evidence proposed by Tulio Álvarez. He also ordered a public oral hearing to be held at 12:00 hours on January 13, 2005.39 Cf. Decision of January 13, 2004, 193° and 144°, issued by the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folios 1920 and 1921). 31 Article 407 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure: “Rectification. If the error can be remedied, the trial judge shall grant the victim a period of five working days to correct it, counted from the date of the respective court order, which shall expressly state which defects must be corrected. Otherwise, it shall be set aside.” Article 401, clauses 1, 2 and 5 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure: “Requirements. A private prosecution must be filed in writing directly with the trial court and must contain: 1. The full name, age, marital status, profession, domicile or residence, of the private prosecutor, his or her national ID card number, and his or her family relationship to the accused;[…] 5. Evidence supporting the allegation of the accused’s participation in the crime; […]”. 32 Cf. Decision of January 21, 2004, issued by the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folio 1924). 33 Cf. Decision of November 2, 2004, issued by the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folio 1982). 34 Cf. Decision of December 1, 2004, issued by the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folio 2127). 35 Cf. Conciliation hearing of December 15, 2004, held before the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folios 2136 to 2150). 36 In the conciliation hearing on December 15, 2014, Willian Rafael Lara stated: “[…] I have not come here (sic) for a conciliation but to demand justice […] There is no intention of reaching a conciliation […]” For his part Tulio Alberto Álvarez Ramos stated: “[…] the citizen WILLIAN LARA, has indicated that he is not willing to reach any agreement so that I could hardly propose a conciliation […] as I have already stated, I do not propose to reach a conciliatory agreement […]”. Therefore, the trial judge decided that: “[…] IT IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY ESTABLISHED that the PARTIES STATED THAT THEY DID NOT WISH TO RECONCILE IN ACCORDANCE with ARTICLE 409 OF THE ORGANIC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE […]” (evidence file, folios 2137 to 2139). 37 In the conciliation hearing, the judge stated: “[…] THIRD: in relation to the precautionary measure barring the citizen JULIO ALBERTO ALVAREZ RAMOS from leaving the country, this Court has granted the petitioner’s legal representatives the right to speak, in order to explain the reasons that motivated this petition, and has granted the right to speak to DR. ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, who has stated: we request the measure of prohibition from leaving the country because we have seen, throughout these years, how in Venezuela (people) have evaded responsibility for crimes of a political nature; moreover, the measure barring the (accused) from leaving the country is a measure often applied not only in criminal matters, but also in civil matters, and has no other purpose than to ensure compliance with the judgment.” […] The Court immediately granted the right to speak to the Legal Representative, DR. CARLOS ALFREDO AGUILAR FLORES, who stated: “Basically, this request is made to safeguard the celerity of the proceedings so that these are not delayed by the commitments of the accused” […] Subsequently, the court found “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 […] this Seventh Trial Court of this Criminal Judicial Circuit, GRANTS the request filed by the petitioner’s legal representatives and, consequently, DECREES THE PROHIBITION TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY against the citizen JULIO ALBERTO ALVAREZ RAMOS, […]” (evidence file, folios 2146 to 2148). 38 Cf. Decision of December 16, 2004, issued by the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folios 2156 to 2158). 39 Cf. Act of Conciliation of December 15, 2004, issued by the Seventh Trial Court (evidence file, folio 2150). 30 10