Court will examine the dispute between the parties with regard to: (i) the time frame and the procedural stage established in domestic law for deciding requests for annulment, and (ii) the need for the presence of the accused at the preliminary hearing, and the reasons why the hearing was postponed. B.3.3.3.1. Time frame and procedural stage established in domestic law for deciding requests for annulment 118. To determine whether there was an unwarranted delay in deciding the two requests for annulment, the Court deems it pertinent to decide the dispute between the parties concerning the time frame and procedural stage established in Venezuelan law. In this regard, the parties are in disagreement as to whether these requests should be decided by the judge in charge of the case within three days or whether, to the contrary, the request should be examined and decided during the preliminary hearing. 119. The representatives substantiated their assertion that the annulment must be decided within three days based on article 177 of the OCCP which establishes that: 141 Court orders and final judgments following an oral hearing shall be issued immediately after the hearing has concluded. In the case of written proceedings, the decisions shall be issued within the following three days (underlining added). 120. Meanwhile, the State’s argument, according to which it was necessary to wait until the preliminary hearing in order to decide on the said requests, is based on article 330 of the OCCP, which indicates: 142 Decision. Once the hearing has concluded, the judge shall decide, in the presence of the parties, the following questions, as applicable: 1. If there are formal defects in the charges brought by the prosecutor or by the complainant, these can be rectified immediately or during this hearing; a request may be made to suspend the hearing, if necessary, and to continue as soon as possible; 2. To admit the charges of the Public Prosecution Service or of the complainant, totally or partially, and to order the opening of the trial; the judge may give the facts a provisional legal definition distinct from the one in the charges brought by the prosecutor or the victim; 3. To order the dismissal of the case, if he considers that any of the cause established by law exist; 4. To decide the objections filed; 5. To decide preventive measures; 6. To rule in accordance with the procedure based on the admission of the facts; 7. To approve reparation agreements; 8. To decide the conditional suspension of the proceedings; 9. To decide on the legality, lawfulness, pertinence and need of the evidence offered to the oral proceeding. 121. To defend their positions, the parties presented several witnesses and expert witnesses on this point. For example, Mr. Brewer stated during the public hearing that: 143 141 Article 177 of the OCCP (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20631). 142 Article 130 of the OCCP (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 20629). 143 Statement made by Mr. Brewer Carías during the public hearing held in this case. 39