9 Convention, and in itself contains a discriminatory principle insofar as it restricted its application to those who had surrendered themselves to the authorities and submitted to criminal proceedings, and was applied to persons in the same circumstances as Allan Brewer Carías; that is, whose arrest and pre-trial detention had been ordered in connection with acts relating to the coup d'état in 2002. 44. With respect to the right to freedom of expression established in Article 13 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that because of Allan Brewer Carías’s open dissidence with the policies of the government, some journalists presumed that he was associated with the establishment of the so-called “transition government.” They allege that the government and its institutions have used the mere presence of Allan Brewer Carías at “Fort Tiuna” on the eve of the issuance of the Carmona Decree as a pretext for hushing the voice of an important opposition figure, accusing him of having been involved in the coup. In this sense, they consider that the criminal proceeding against Allan Brewer Carías constitutes a violation of his right to freedom of expression, established in Article 13 of the American Convention. 45. With respect to the right to judicial protection established at Article 25 of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that in Venezuela there is no effective judicial remedy for the protection of the rights of Allan Brewer Carías. In this respect, they indicate that Allan Brewer Carías repeatedly turned to the Provisional Judge of Control and to the Court of Appeals in order to have his rights restored in the course of the proceeding. They allege that, in response, the courts held that they did not have legal powers to protect his rights, that his motions were time-barred or that they could not interfere with the autonomy of the prosecutor’s office in the conduct of the investigation. 46. In that connection, they say that Allan Brewer Carías and his attorneys presented themselves repeatedly at the office of the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor during the investigation phase. They say that Allan Brewer Carías went to that office almost daily for nine months, even if it was simply to make a manuscript copy of the proceedings, a copy of which was systematically denied to him. However, they argue that those appearances proved futile since the provisional prosecutor did nothing to rectify the irregularities that arose in the preparation of the case file and arbitrarily rejected the requests of the defense and the evidence that was offered to her. 47. Furthermore, they claim that in the instant case the way in which the State acted also clearly demonstrates the absence of an effective judicial remedy to protect Allan Brewer Carías from violations of his human rights, particularly when faced with a judicial system and a public ministry utterly devoid of independence. 48. They indicate that Allan Brewer Carías repeatedly turned to the provisional judge of control and the Court of Appeals to seek the restoration of his rights. Provisional Judge of Control Bognanno decided that he lacked legal authority for that purpose and that he could not interfere, since the provisional prosecutor enjoys “autonomy” in the conduct of the investigation. The petitioners argue that in light of the foregoing, the only judicial recourse available against the violation of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention was and is the vacation of the thus flawed judicial proceedings on grounds of unconstitutionality, in accordance with Article 191 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure: Article 191. Vacation. All proceedings having to do with the intervention, presence, and representation of the accused shall be vacated in those cases and forms recognized in this Code, or when they entail a failure to observe or a violation of fundamental rights and guarantees envisaged in this Code, the Constitution, laws, and international treaties, conventions, or agreements signed by the Republic. 49. Thus, they note that the answer and objection to the indictment of November 8, 2005, requested the judge to vacate the proceedings on account of the above violations, and concluded with the following motion: In light of the foregoing, we respectfully move for the vacation of all the proceedings in this case, owing to the systematic and massive violation of Dr. Allan Brewer Carías’s constitutional rights and