investigation stage has concluded, 119 culminating in the indictment of the accused. 120 On October 21, 2005, the Sixth Prosecutor filed charges so that the court would proceed, “consequently, to try the individuals.” 121 According to the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure the following stage is the so-called “intermediate” stage, which consists, above all, of the preliminary hearing. 122 This stage may end with the dismissal of the case or with a decision to begin the trial. If the latter is ordered, the third stage of the proceedings initiates; namely, the oral trial, and the remedies that can be filed, such as the appeal and cassation. In addition, article 125 of the OCCP establishes that one of the rights of the accused is “[n]ot to be tried in absentia, with the exceptions established in the Constitution of the Republic.” 123 96. Bearing in mind the above, in this case, as indicated in the description of the stages of the applicable criminal proceedings (supra para. 95), the proceedings against Mr. Brewer Carías are still at the intermediate stage, because the preliminary hearing has not been held yet and, consequently, the oral trial has not taken place; hence, the Court notes that the criminal proceedings are at an early stage. This means that it is not possible to analyze the negative impact that a decision could have if taken at in the early stages when such decisions may be rectified or corrected by means of the remedies or actions established in domestic law. 97. Owing to the early stage that the proceedings were at, the defense counsel of Mr. Brewer Carías filed the different requests for a declaration of nullity and for other measures mentioned previously (supra para. 90). However, they did not file the remedies that the State indicated were appropriate; namely, the remedy of appeal established in articles 451 to 458 of the OCCP, 124 the remedy of cassation indicated in articles 459 to 469 of the OCCP, 125 and the appeal for review indicated in articles 470 to 477 of the OCCP. 126 In this regard, the State alleged the existence of “[t]he remedies corresponding to the intermediate stage established in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; also, the completion of the trial stage, if applicable, as well as [the existence of] effective remedies, [such as] the appeal against decisions, against final judgments, for reconsideration, of cassation, [and] for review.” 119 Article 280 of the OCCP establishes that “[t]he purpose of this stage if to prepare the oral and public trial, by investigating the truth and gathering all the evidence that will provide grounds for the indictment by the prosecutor and the defense of the accused” (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20636). 120 Among the actions that conclude the preparatory stage, article 326 of the 2001 OCCP refers to the submission of the indictment to the supervisory court by the Public Prosecution Service, “when the Public Prosecution Service considers that the investigation [has] provided real grounds to try the accused” (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20638). 121 Indictment of October 21, 2005 (file of the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14193 to 14351). 122 Article 327 of the OCCP indicates: “preliminary hearing – once the indictment has been presented, the judge shall summon the parties to the oral hearing” (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20638). 123 Article 125 of the OCCP (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20628). 124 Article 453 of the OCCP establishes that: “[t]he remedy of appeal shall be admissible against the final judgment delivered in the oral trial” (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20645). 125 Article 459 of the OCCP indicates that: “[t]he remedy of cassation may only be filed against the judgments of the courts of appeal that decide the appeal without ordering the holding of a new oral trial when the Public Prosecution Service has requested in the indictment, or the victim in his complaint, a sentence to imprisonment for a maximum of more than four years; or the judgment includes a sentence to imprisonment in excess of this limit, when the Public Prosecution Service or the complainant have requested the application of lower punishments than those indicated. In addition, the decisions of the courts of appeal that confirm the proceedings or that enable their continuation may be contested” (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20646). 126 Article 470 of the OCCP indicates that: “[t]he review shall be admissible against the final judgment, at all times and only in favor of the accused” (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20647). 32