8 witnesses who came forward in the course of the investigation and “gave their testimony in secret.” They note specifically that on October 5, 2005, testimony was taken from General Lucas Rincón, without the defense having been given called or given notice. In addition, they argue that the ten journalists who divulged the “well-known facts reported by the media” that were the basis for the indictment were not called to ratify their assertions. They note that on being called by the defense of Allan Brewer Carías, they said that they had not been witnesses to the facts, thus the petitioners consider inadmissible the referential evidence that was the basis for indicting Allan Brewer Carías. 39. As for the appearance of the witnesses offered by the defense, they allege that on April 21, 2004, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor rejected the testimony of Nelson Mezerhane, Nelson Socorro, Yajaira Andueza, Guaicaipuro Lameda, and Leopoldo Baptista on the grounds that they were referential witnesses whose testimony lacked any evidentiary value under the rules in force. In addition, they allege that they were denied the anticipated filing of the statement by Pedro Carmona Estanga, and that as it had been submitted in writing, it had likely been “ignored.” 40. With respect to the argument of the State regarding submission of evidence and the appropriate time for contesting in the trial stage evidence collected in the investigation, the petitioners claim that the State denied the accused judicial guarantees provided in Article 8 of the American Convention during the investigation stage, which explains and proves that Allan Brewer Carías “has been a victim of a massive violation of the right to a normal proceeding.” They say that perhaps "for the State the whimsical belief of a prosecutor suffices to blithely make accusations with no evidence other than the dictates of his fancy and without allowing the person concerned to control or contest the evidence on which they claim to base their belief.” 41. They argue that there is nothing in the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “COPP” for the Spanish) to prevent the accused from upholding all their fair trial guarantees. They held that Article 125 of the COPP sets out the rights of the accused, which include to request the Public Ministry to carry out investigation procedures to disprove the charges made and to request that pre-trial detention be declared improper in advance, as was requested on October 26, 2005, and on which the judge of control did not make a decision. They argue that the accused has the right that the investigation conclude exculpating him, through a final decision that proposes the dismissal of this case (COPP, Arts. 315-320), and even if the final decision is to indict, the accused has the right in a preliminary hearing before a judge of control to have his case to dismissed. They hold that the fair trial guarantees recognized in Article 8 of the American Convention apply at every stage of all proceedings. 10 42. Furthermore, in the indictment, the prosecutor used a series of videos as supposed evidence against Allan Brewer Carías, which, in the prosecutor's opinion, contained statements by journalists and interviewees that incriminated him. They say that Allan Brewer Carías asked to be shown the videos concerned on several occasions, but he was only shown the contents of some of them. On different dates thereafter, Allan Brewer Carías’s defense counsel asked to be shown the contents of those videos and received diverse negative replies, variously citing as reasons that the tapes had allegedly not been found all, that because of the large number of accused in the investigation it was difficult to find a suitable time, or that the office was busy with other matters at the time. Next, a procedure was requested that consisted of ordering technicians to prepare transcripts of all the videos in the record that contained interviews with journalists and were intended to be considered as supposed elements of proof for the indictment; however, this procedure was denied in a decision dated April 21, 2005. 43. The petitioners say that after the Special Amnesty Law was adopted, the Allan Brewer Carías’s prosecution should have ceased given that the amnesty decree suppressed the offense. In addition, they argue that the refusal of the motion to dismiss under Decree 5790, with Rank, Value, and Force of a Special Amnesty Law was unfounded, which violated Articles 8 and 1 of the American 10 In support of their arguments they cite I/A Court H.R. Case of Claude-Reyes et al v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, par. 116.