General […] to shield and excuse his […] conduct by affirming that what appears published under his signature is a reference to what Rafael Poleo said”; (vi) “the investigation of this case has been conducted by an entity headed by a person who is totally biased,” and (vii) “the right of defense, to the presumption of innocence, and to due process, all of which are of constitutional rank, [had been violated], which resulted in the nullity of all the actions taken by the Public Prosecution Service.” 93. The second brief – consisting of 523 pages – was presented to the Twenty-fifth Judge by the defense on November 8, 2005, in response to the indictment of October 21, 2005 (supra para. 68). In this brief, the defense rejected “all aspects, both factual and legal, of the charges.” On that occasion, the defense requested that: 117 (i) “the nullity be declared of all the measures taken in the investigation conducted by the Public Prosecution Service, as well as the concluding decision”; (ii) “the objections filed be declared admissible”; (iii) “the evidence offered by the Public Prosecution Service be rejected”; (iv) “all the evidence that [… they had] offered be admitted,” and (v) “Mr. Brewer be allowed to stand trial a free man.” The request for absolute nullity was founded above all on: i)The refusal to carry out the measures requested by the defense; ii) The alleged violation of the right of defense and the principle of the presumption of innocence by presumably reversing the burden of proof and using hearsay; iii) The supposed violation of the right of defense and the adversarial principle related to “investigative measures based on media reports; iv) The alleged lack of a prompt decision on the request for annulment filed on October 4, 2005, and v) The presumed violation of the guarantee of an ordinary judge. 94. In addition to the requests for a declaration of nullity, this 523-page brief contained the following objections to the indictment: (i) the action was supposedly “taken illegally owing to the absence of formal requirements for filing the indictment,” and (ii) the alleged “action had been taken illegally because it was based on an act that was not a criminal offense.” 118 As ground for the requests, the defense argued: (i) the presumed “inexistence in this case of the so-called ‘well-known act of communication’ required by the legal doctrine of the constitutional chamber in order to justify criminal charges”; (ii) the alleged “unfounded accusation and the [supposed] inexistence in this case of the offense of conspiracy”; (iii) a detailed analysis of each of the supposed “probative element” used by the Public Prosecution Service in the indictment; (iv) the actions of Mr. Brewer, “as a lawyer during the months prior to April 12, 2002, and on that day,” and (v) “the non-liability of the lawyer in the exercise of his profession.” In addition, the defense presented arguments related to the reasons why it had asked that the evidence requested by the Public Prosecution Service be rejected, and the evidence that it wished to offer during the trial. 95. In order to decide whether these briefs represent adequate remedies, the Court notes that, in this case, the preparatory stage has been completed; in other words, the 117 The defense’s brief filed before the Twenty-fifth Court on November 8, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 15, folio 15195). 118 On this point, Mr. Brewer’s defense counsel indicated, inter alia, that the prosecutor had “accepted, erroneously in our opinion, that the said decree for a transitional government of April 12, 2002, had “entered into force,” disregarding and changing “violently the Constitution of December 30, 1999,” which “legally speaking is not correct. Under Venezuela’s Constitution and law no decree of a supposed transitional government could have entered into force on April 12 and, on that date, the 1999 Constitution was not changed, because this act never began to take effect or enter into force, among other factors, because it was never published in any way in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela” (file of annexes to the answering brief of the State, annex 1, exhibit 14, folio 14850). 31