Director of the Scientific, Criminal and Criminological Investigations Corps as well as to the Director of INTERPOL. 68. With regard to the petitioners’ allegation of the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence, considering that it was the defense’s responsibility to discredit the charges filed by the Office of the Prosecutor (see supra III A), the State argues that, taken together, Article 125.551 and Articles 13152 and 30553 of the COPP, outline an active and pro-active role for the defense within the investigation in order to guarantee due process of law, and that it can request that other actions or investigations be pursued in order to discredit the charges filed as long as they meet the relevance, need and usefulness requirements, and as long as they are directly related to the investigation and help to shed more light on the facts. 69. In response to the petitioners’ allegation regarding the lack of access to “alleged evidence against the accused, and to witnesses and other evidence he has brought forth”54, (see supra III A), the State contends that, in the preparatory and in the intermediate phase, the petitioners confuse basic concepts that are necessary in order to understand the process and to make claims of that nature, such as the investigations, elements of conviction, types of evidence and actual evidence; and that they don’t even know at which stage of the Venezuelan system of criminal procedure should those be used. 70. With regard to the allegation made by the petitioners that they had been denied the right to a timely and effective defense (see supra III A), the State argues that the petitioners do not provide any evidence for the allegation and that they pretend the Commission to simply take their word that they have not had access to the case file, and, therefore, to a timely and effective defense. The State rejects those arguments and alleges that it has 17 case records signed by legal counsel for Mr. Allan Brewer Carias during the proceedings at the Public Ministry, where he acknowledged with his signature that he reviewed each and all parts of the case file without making any observations. Likewise, the State points out that the petitioners reviewed the videos and other annexes connected to the charges filed, as the request forms to review case files indicate. In light of this, the State argues that it seems strange and false for the petitioners to claim that they did not have access to the case file or to what they mistakenly refer to as “the evidence” during the investigation phase. The State also points out that during the investigation phase and since the date of the indictment, Allan Brewer Carías and his legal counsel have The State refers to Article 125 of the COPP. Rights. “The accused shall have the following rights: 1. To be specifically and clearly informed of the charged acts; 2. To communicate with family members, lawyer of choice, or association of legal assistance, to inform of his detention; 3. Be assisted, since the initial stages of the investigation, by a lawyer chosen by the accused or his family members and, otherwise, by a court-appointed attorney; 4. Be assisted, free of charge, by a translator or interpreter if the accused does not understand or speak the Spanish language; 5. Request the Public Ministry carry out investigation procedures to disprove the charges made; (emphasis by the State); 6. Appear directly before the Judge in order to make a statement; 7. Request that the investigation be activated and have access to its content, except in cases which have been declared reserved in certain parts and only for the time that this statement continues; 8. Request the pre-trial detention be declared improper in advance; 9. Be subjected to the constitutional precept that exempts one from making statements and, even in the case of consenting to make a statement, not making it under oath; 10. Not be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to personal dignity; 11. Not be subjected to techniques or methods that alter free will, even with consent; 12. Not be tried in absentia, except as set forth in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 on August 25, 2009, pages 30 and 31. 52 The State refers to Article 131 of the COPP. Preliminary warning. “Before the statement begins, the accused will be subjected to the constitutional precept that exempts him from declaring on his own behalf and, even in the case of consenting to making a statement, not doing so under oath. He shall also be told in detail of the act which has been attributed to him, with all of the circumstances of time, place and mode of commission, including those that are of importance for the judgment, the applicable legal provisions, and the information that the investigation bears against him.He will also be instructed that the statement is a means for his defense and, therefore, that he has the right to explain everything which may serve to disprove the suspicions against him and to request proceedings be carried out as considered necessary.” (Emphasis by the State). Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 del August 25, 2009, pages 31 and 32. 53 The State refers to Article 305 of the COPP. Proposition of proceedings. “The accused, the persons who have intervened in the case, and their representatives, may request that the prosecutor undertake proceedings to clarify the acts. The Public Ministry shall initiate these proceedings, if considered pertinent and useful, making record of its opinion to the contrary as subsequently corresponds.” Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 on August 25, 2009, page 32. 54 The State cites paragraph 5 of the petition presented to the Commission on January 24, 2007. 51 15