B.2. Remedies filed prior to the final judgment 49. Mr. Álvarez filed a petition for a constitutional remedy (amparo) before the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area against the Seventh Trial Court, arguing that its actions were unconstitutional, given the manner in which it had assessed the evidence, substantiated the accusation, and conducted the conciliation hearing and the oral trial. He also claimed that he had been denied access to the evidence, leaving him in a situation of defenselessness that violated due process.52 On February 11, 2005, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals ruled the amparo action inadmissible, on grounds that the petitioner could have recourse to 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.”53 On February 18, 2005, Tulio Álvarez filed an appeal against the inadmissibility of the constitutional amparo action, and proceeded to forward his case file to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court.54 50. On April 14, 2005, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court confirmed the inadmissibility of the constitutional amparo action filed by Tulio Álvarez against the alleged unconstitutional actions of the Seventh Trial Court.55 The reason given was that, in seeking a review of the legality of the hearings, the defendant had not exhausted the ordinary courts and therefore the constitutional amparo action was inadmissible under the provisions of Article 6, clause 5, of the Organic Law of Amparo on Constitutional Rights and Guarantees. 56 B.3. Judgment of February 10, 2005 51. On February 10, 2005, the Seventh Trial Court issued a judgment, in which it sentenced Tulio Álvarez to a prison term of 2 years and 3 months for the crime of ongoing aggravated defamation, an offense defined and sanctioned in Article 444 in relation to Article 99 57of the Reformed Criminal Code. The judgment was published on February 28, 2005.58 C. Remedies filed after the final judgment C.1 Remedy of appeal 52. Dissatisfied with that decision (supra para. 51), Tulio Álvarez appealed the conviction before the Third Division of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. On May 5, 2005, the Appeals Court declared admissible the remedy and Cf. Judgment of April 14, 2005, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (evidence file, folios 2580 to 2583). 53 Cf. Judgment of April 14, 2005, delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court (evidence file, folios 2580, 2583 and 2584). 54 Cf. Judgment of April 14, 2005 (evidence file, folio 2580). 55 Cf. Judgment of April 14, 2005 (evidence file, folio 2588). 56 Article 6(5) of the Organic Law of Amparo on Constitutional Rights and Guarantees: “An action of amparo shall not be admissible: […] 5) when the aggrieved party has opted to have recourse to the ordinary courts or made use of preexisting judicial mechanisms. In such cases, in alleging the violation or the threat of violation of a constitutional right or guarantee, the judge shall adhere to the procedures and time frames established in Articles 23, 24 and 26 of this Law, so as to order the provisional suspension of the effects of the action called into question […]. 57 Article 99 of Venezuela’s Criminal Code: “Several violations of the same legal provision are considered a single punishable act even if they were committed on different dates, provided that they were carried out through acts stemming from a single decision; however, the penalty shall be increased by one-sixth to one-half.” 58 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005 (evidence file, folios 2333 to 2478). 52 12