13 disputes but which must be resolved at the preliminary hearing in the presence of the parties. It states that if the Commission speaks of a remedy for annulment, it is easy, albeit incorrect, to separate the preliminary hearing from the inaccurately termed remedy and then argue, and maintain, the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule. It maintains that the petitioners have not filed a remedy for annulment but rather a reply to the prosecution service’s accusation, which contains various requests that cannot be resolved in the absence of the accused. Consequently, the paralysis in the proceedings is not due to an unwarranted delay on the part of the State, but rather because of the defendant’s failure to appear. 66. The State maintains that both the prosecutor’s requests in the accusation and those of the defense in its reply remain unresolved not because it seeks to violate the rights of the accused or to delay the proceedings, but because for as long as the accused is absent from the criminal trial and a fugitive from Venezuelan justice, no examination or decision can be made regarding requests made by the parties if they are not all present; moreover, there is also the fact that the requests touch on and have a determining role in deciding the merits of the case. b. Contentions regarding the right to an effective remedy and to due process 67. The State claims that the right to judicial protection does not mean that an individual must obtain decisions that are in line with his interests; on the contrary, it means that the individual enjoys the possibility of access to the justice system to defend his contentions and to secure, in an efficient way, a response from State that is grounded on law. 68. Venezuela holds that the charges against Allan Brewer Carías were made in accordance with the principles and procedural guarantees established in both the Constitution and the associated criminal law and in the treaties, conventions, and international agreements that the State has signed. It maintains that at the indictment, on January 27, 2005, Allan Brewer Carías was duly assisted by lawyers of his choosing, León Enrique Cottin Núñez and Pedro Nikken Bellshawhog. It reports that on that occasion, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor asked the accused: “[...] if he understood the reasons charges were being brought, whether he had any questions about the matter [...]” and that the accused made no response. In addition, he was asked whether he wished to give a statement, to which the accused replied that he did not. It indicates that the deed of indictment was signed by his defense team and that later; Allan Brewer Carías left the prosecutor’s office in full enjoyment of his freedom, because the proceedings against him were being pursued without an order for him to be held in custody. 69. It holds that Allan Brewer Carías’s legal representatives fully exercised his right of defense and that they requested that formalities be pursued in order to cast light on the facts. It maintains that in response, the Public Ministry carried out those actions that met the requirements of relevance and necessity. 70. The State points out that during the investigation phase, the defense filed appeals against all the judicial rulings issued and that those appeals were dismissed by the various chambers of the Courts of Appeal that heard them. 71. The State notes that after Allan Brewer Carías was formally accused of the crime of conspiring to violently change the Constitution on October 21, 2005, he informed the judge, in writing, on May 10, 2006, of his plans to leave the country, falsely assuming that his rights and constitutional guarantees of defense were being violated and because “[…] the distinguished University of Columbia has offered him the opportunity to fulfill an old professional aspiration, to become a member of their faculty, and that he has decided to wait until the circumstances were more conducive to ensuring an impartial trial with respect for his guarantees […].” 72. It reports that as a result, on June 2, 2006, the Public Ministry requested that the Twentyfifth Temporary Judge issue a judicial preventive detention order against Allan Randolph Brewer Carías, even though the charging documents included a request for such an order. Venezuela maintains that his