particularly necessary in situations of increased social conflict, alterations of public order, and social or political polarization, precisely due to the series of risks that these may signify for certain persons or groups at a specific time. 111 The presumption of innocence does not prevent the authorities from keeping society duly informed about criminal investigations, but requires that, when they do so, they should observe the discretion and circumspection necessary to guarantee the presumption of innocence of those possibly involved. 112 111. In this case, the fact that the Prosecutor General’s book entitled “Abril comienza en octubre,” was published in September 2005 could have led people to presume that Mr. Brewer Carías was guilty of drafting the so-called “Carmona Decree,” because the formal indictment against the currently presumed victim by the respective prosecutor was issued less than a month later, in October that year, a matter to which an objection was raised in the first request for annulment of October 4, 2005, during the preliminary investigation stage. 112. It should not be forgotten, as revealed by the case file, that, on August 28, 2002, the Prosecutor General appointed directly, as a “special substitute,” the very prosecutor who, in October 2005, had drawn up the formal charges against Mr. Brewer Carías. 113 The possible violation of the right to the presumption of innocence is particularly evident in a system where prosecutors are appointed provisionally, and under which free appointment and removal exists. Thus, in this case is was essential to analyze this structural situation, since the provisional nature of the appointments could have had a negative impact on the autonomy of the prosecutors and on the corresponding criminal proceedings, which, we consider, could not be ignored by the inter-American judges. 113. It is also relevant to mention that this allegation with regard to the drafting of the “Carmona Decree” made by the Prosecutor General in his book published in September 2005 – added to the fact that it was made by an important State official – may have contributed to substantiate the guilt of the presumed victim. Consequently, in keeping with the previously mentioned case law of the Inter-American Court, prosecutors, and especially prosecutors general, must abstain from writing, even in a book, about cases that are being heard by other prosecutors, considering that this obligation of circumspection is increased in of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 151, and Case of J v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 262, para. 247. 111 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para.139, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 151. 112 In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that: “The freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, includes the freedom to receive and impart information. Article 6 § 2 cannot therefore prevent the authorities from informing the public about criminal investigations in progress, but it requires that they do so with all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected.” ECHR, Allenet de Ribemont v. France, 10 February 1995, § 38, Series A no. 308. See also, Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 247. 113 The respective appointment appears on folio 979 of the main case file, which states: “BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA. PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE. Office of the Prosecutor General. Caracas, August 28, 2002. Years 192 and 143. DECISION No. 539: JULIÁN ISAÍAS RODRÍGUEZ DÍAZ, Prosecutor General, pursuant to the provisions of article 1 and 49 of the Organic Law of the Public Prosecution Service, and since the measures taken by the First and Second Substitutes of the Sixth Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service with full competence at the national level to locate and serve notice of summons have been unsuccessful, and thus the respective list of substitutes has been exhausted, I appoint as SPECIAL SUBSTITUTE the lawyer LUISA ORTEGA DÍAZ, bearer of identify card No. 4,555,631, who has been employed as Special Substitute of the Seventh Prosecutor of the Public Prosecution Service of the Judicial Circumscription of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, to take charge of the said Office, which is currently vacant, as of 01-09-2002 and until new instructions from this Office. Register, notify and publish. JULIÁN ISAÍAS RODRÍGUEZ DÍAZ. Prosecutor General.” 29