57. The State argues that the hypothesis that Brewer Carías was prosecuted in order to scare him because of his long trajectory as a defender of democracy and of human rights and for his political dissidence (see supra III A) is false. It contends that there are no grounds or proof to support the allegation and that political dissidence does not constitute an excuse to commit the crime of conspiring to violently change the Constitution. 58. In the opinion of the Venezuelan State if the IACHR declares this petition admissible, it will again validate the coup d’état of April 11, 2002, and will ignore the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the OAS and by its Permanent Council.47 2. Allegations regarding how the judicial proceedings were carried out 59. The State points out that the process to indict Allan Brewer Carías was set in motion on April 12, 2002, by the Office of the Public Prosecutor with Nationwide Jurisdiction on Matters of Corruption and with Special Jurisdiction over Banks, Insurance and Capital Markets, in order to determine the degree of responsibility of the persons involved in the events that took place in April 2002 and whose records were later forwarded to the Office of the Sixth Prosecutor. 60. The State points out that on January 27, 2005, the Sixth Prosecutor filed charges against Allan Brewer Carías, for his “alleged participation in drafting the Constitutive Act of the Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity containing the Constitutive Decree of a Government of Democratic Transition and National Unity […] on April 12, 2002, at the Miraflores Palace, after a group of civilians and officers of the National Armed Forces, ignoring the constitutional and legitimately constituted government, outside the law and the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, proceeded to form a de facto government; their conduct falling within the scope of the alleged crime of CONSPIRING TO VIOLENTLY CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, a punishable offense under the provisions of Article 144 (2) [currently Article 143(2)] of the Penal Code.”48 61. The State alleges that the arraignment proceeding was carried out in accordance with all the principles and guarantees of due process established in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as well as in the rules of criminal procedure and in the international agreements and treaties the Republic is a party to. The State points out that during the proceedings Allan Brewer Carías was duly counseled by his chosen attorneys, León Enrique Cottin Núñez and Pedro Nikken Bellshawhog. Furthermore, the State points out, during those proceedings the Sixth Prosecutor asked the accused: "[...] if he understood the reasons why he was being charged, if he had any questions about what was said during the proceedings [...]" and that the accused didn’t say anything. The State also points out that the accused was asked if he wished to make any statements to which he responded that he did not. The State also points out that the indictment was signed by defense attorneys Pedro Nikken and León Cottin and by Allan Brewer Carías. 62. The State contends that the attorneys for Allan Brewer Carías fully exercised their right to a defense and that they requested the prosecutors to conduct further investigations in order to The State claims that the IACHR admitted there was a coup d'état, and unduly recognized the perpetrators of the acts committed on April 11 and 12, when it sent a letter “de facttum” to the Minister of Foreign Relations, which requested information on the events, as if legitimacy could exist within the concept of usurpation. The State claims that it became extremely concerned that the IACHR has not processed a precautionary measure requested for the Constitutional President of Venezuela, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, but that instead has requested certain information from the usurpers admitting their legitimate character as leaders. The State claims that, on this date, Allan Brewer Carias and the IACHR admitted there had been a coup d'état “recognizing its leaders and disregarding the legitimacy of the President Chávez government,” the attributes of the OAS Charter, Inter-American Democratic Charter, and even the IACHR. Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 on August 25, 2009, page 15. 48 The State cites Article 144: “The following persons will be punished with prison for twelve to twenty four years: Those who, without the object of changing the republican political form given to the nation, conspire or rise up to violently change the National Constitution.” Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 on August 25, 2009, page 22. 47 13