33 wrote to the Senior Prosecutor of the Public Ministry to inform him of alleged obstruction by the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor and asking the prosecution service to assume an “objective attitude.” Manuel Bognanno was suspended from duty on June 29, 2005. On July 6, 2005, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling of the Twenty-fifth Temporary Judge and ordered another control judge to rule on the defense brief. During the intermediate stage of the proceedings, the defense has had access to the copies of the case file. 152. In connection with requests for copies of investigation case files from the Public Ministry, the case law of the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has ruled that: […] with respect to the alleged violation of the rights of equality, due process, and defense, based on the Public Ministry’s presumed failure to respond to their requests for certified copies of the case documents, it must be noted that Article 304 of the current applicable Code expressly provides that all undertakings of the investigation shall be kept from third parties but that documents may be examined by the accused and his defense team and by the victim and his attorneys with special powers, regardless of whether or not he is a party in the action. […] Moreover, Article 97 of the Organic Law of the Public Ministry states that the court may agree on the copying, exhibition, or inspection of a given document, file, book, or record in the archive, and such an order shall be implemented unless the Attorney General of the Republic determines said document, file, book, or record to be of a reserved or confidential nature. This is in line with the power awarded to the Public Ministry, under Article 285 of the Constitution and Articles 108 and 280 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, to investigate (with the applicable formalities) the occurrence of punishable acts and to order, at the investigation stage, the confidentiality of the procedural record, as explained by Article 304 thereof, which would be the 125 sole obstacle to the securing of copies of the case file. 153. In the case at hand, the Commission notes that the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor did not order the confidentiality of the procedural record as “the sole obstacle to the securing of copies of the case file.” Neither did the prosecutor abide by the court’s order to afford access to the case file, arguing that the defense had reportedly been able to examine it. 125 Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Judgment No. 298/2009, case file 2009-105, June 18, 2009. In: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scp/junio/298-18609-2009-a09-105.html. See also: “Thus, within this constitutional framework and to ensure effective judicial protection, Article 49 of the Constitution enshrines the right of defense, which must be present in all judicial and administrative proceedings conducted by agencies of the State in their relations with the public, and which must be inviolable at all stages of investigations and trials, in order to ensure all persons prior knowledge of the charges for which they are being investigated and of the evidence against them, to afford them adequate time to prepare the means with which to defend themselves, and, primordially, the right to appeal an adverse judgment to secure its review by a higher body; and all of this is of greater importance in criminal proceedings, where the punitive power of the State is evident. Consequently, the rights of defense and of due process were established by the framers of the Constitution as a guarantee to protect the human rights of the accused which, during a criminal trial, implies, as a sine qua non for its exercise, access by the accused to the proceedings conducted during the investigation phase, to enable him to prepare his claims and develop an adequate defense […]. Thus, Article 97 of the Organic Law of the Public Ministry provides: ‘(…) The court may agree on the copying, exhibition, or inspection of a given document, file, book, or record in the archive, and such an order shall be implemented, unless the Attorney General of the Republic determines said document, file, book, or record to be of reserved or confidential nature.’ Consequently, since the Public Ministry did not place a reservation on the documents comprising investigation No. 24F40NN-0034-05 and in accordance with the aforesaid Article 97, this Chamber shares the opinion of the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Zulia State Criminal Judicial Circuit, which ruled groundless the amparo relief brought, finding that the actions of the Tenth First-instance Court of that criminal judicial circuit, serving as a control court, were in accordance with the law and the scope of its jurisdiction, as provided for in Article 4 of the Organic Law of Amparo for Constitutional Rights and Guarantees, in finding that, pursuant to the right of defense, to due process, to effective judicial protection, and to the obtaining of a timely response, the defendant is entitled to secure simple copies of the investigation documents to prepare his defense, provided that the Public Ministry has not ordered total or partial reservations placed on the proceedings.” Supreme Court of Justice, Criminal Cassation Chamber, Judgment No. 298/2009. case file No. 06-0760, July 26, 2006. In: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Julio/1427-260706-06-0760.htm.