21 47 preventing 27 persons charged in connection with the events of April 2002 from leaving the country. An appeal against that order was lodged with the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal. On January 31, 2005, the Appeals Chamber overturned the ban on leaving the country. On February 3, 2005, the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice suspended those Court of Appeal judges who had voted to annul the decision against which the appeal was brought; it also suspended Temporary Judge Josefina Gómez Sosa, for failing to give adequate grounds in the order prohibiting them from leaving the 48 49 country. Judge Gómez Sosa was replaced by Judge Manuel Bognanno. 102. On May 4, 2005, the defense asked the Twenty-fifth Temporary Judge to exhibit all the 50 videos, to admit the testimony offered, and to give them access to copies of the case file. The defense submitted Allan Brewer Carías’s immigration record, to show that during the weeks prior to April 12, 2002, he was out of the country. On May 9, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor rejected the evidence on the 51 grounds that it was unnecessary. 103. On May 11, 2005, the Twenty-fifth Temporary Judge, Manuel Bognanno, ordered the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor to allow the defense “full access to the case file and videos held in connection with the proceedings…” and ruled that it was not for him to rule on the relevance of the 52 testimony offered. On May 16, 2005, the defense filed an appeal against that decision with the Court of 47 The Admissibility Report N˚97/09 wrongly indicated that the ban on leaving the country included Allan Brewer Carías. In the merits procedural stage in was determined that this ban was not issued against Allan Brewer Carias but against other indictees investigated for their alleged participation in those facts. “The Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice […] suspended, indefinitely and without pay, the judges of the Tenth Chamber of Court of Appeal who, on the 1st of this month, overturned the ban on leaving the country imposed on 27 persons accused of civil rebellion for allegedly endorsing the decree whereby Pedro Carmona Estanga replaced President Hugo Chávez on April 12, 2002. […] The affected judges are Pedro Troconis Da Silva and Hertzen Vilela Sibada, who found that the ban on leaving the country ordered […] by the 25th Control Judge, Josefina Gómez Sosa, was not sufficiently grounded. […] Because it found that Judge Gómez Sosa committed an inexcusable error, the Judicial Commission also resolved to suspend her indefinitely and without pay. On this point, the ruling states: “Often, ungrounded rulings are issued with the deliberate purpose of having them overturned on appeal; it is truly inexplicable for first instance judge to have adopted such a decision without giving reasons, when that is an elementary obligation of all judges.” The Judicial Commission insisted that the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal, “instead of noting the crass error and ordering its rectification by returning the proceedings for that purpose, took advantage of the error and aggravated it, issuing the decision that is now causing uproar in the country.” The request for a ban on leaving the country was imposed on December 17 by the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor of the Public Ministry, Luisa Ortega, and it was upheld during the night of that same day by Judge Gómez Sosa. The defendants were: Heidi Engelberth, María Corina Machado, José Rodríguez Iturbe, Julio Brazón, Leopoldo López Gil, Felipe Brillembourg, César Carballo, José Curiel, Rocío Guijarro, Sergio Omar Calderón, Raúl De Armas, Guaicaipuro Lameda, León Arismendi, Godofredo Marín, Douglas León Natera, Rafael Huizi Clavier, Vilma Petrash, Enrique Yéspica, Jaime Manzo, Federico Carmona, Ignacio Salvatierra, Alberto Quirós Corradi, Corina Parisca de Machado, Juan Pablo Borregales, Alejandro Peña Esclusa, Elías Bittar, and Alvis Muñoz.” El Nacional, February 4, 2005, A/2. “Suspendidos Jueces que favorecieron a imputados por Decreto de Carmona.” See also: Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 15, 2009, in the appeal filed by Judge Josefina Gómez Sosa. 48 49 Annex 17. Dismissal Resolution. See: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/informacion/resoluciones/cj/resolucionCJ_08.htm . Annex 17. Dismissal Resolution, in which http://www.tsj.gov.ve/informacion/resoluciones/cj/resolucionCJ_08.htm. the new judge is appointed. See: 50 Annex 18. See: Decision of the Sixth Temporary Prosecutor of May 9, 2005. Annex 35 to the original petition received on January 24, 2007. 51 Annex 18. Decision of May 9, 2005, in which it was considered that in the request the defense did not indicate what it was seeking to prove, which facts in the indictment they were going to refute with its filing of new evidence, and as it was considered that the request was not in line with what is established in Article 198 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, which states that: “… a means of evidence, to be admitted, should refer directly or indirectly to the object of the investigation and be useful for discovering the truth.” Annex 35 to the original petition received on January 24, 2007. 52 Annex 19. Twenty-fifth Control Judge, deed 25C-482-05, decision of May 11, 2005. Annex 44 to the original petition received on January 24, 2007.