3 11. The petitioners noted that on that same day, February 2, 2003, a new signature collection drive got underway popularly known as “El firmazo” [‘the Big Signature Drive”], this time in order to convene a recall referendum rather than just a ballot question or consultation on the continuation of the president’s term in office. They also asserted that on August 20, 2003, more than three million signatures were brought before the CNE to petition for a recall referendum to be held. They contended that on September 12, 2003, the CNE found the petition inadmissible because it had been filed tardily and the Council established more than thirty technical requirements in order to be able to hold a recall referendum on the presidential term in office. 12. The petitioners noted that the CNE set a new period for collection of signatures to convene a referendum to recall the President of the Republic, which ran from November 28 to December 1, 2003. Said signature collection drive was popularly known as “El reafirmazo” [‘the Big Reaffirmation’]. The petitioners contended as well that in the weeks prior to this signature collection drive, both the President of the Republic and other high-ranking government officials made threatening public statements to intimidate citizens into not participating in the signature collection process. 13. They also noted that on December 2, 2003, the Ministry of Infrastructure reported to the country that the signatures gathered by the opposition in el Reafirmazo would be posted at the collection centers so that the 24 million Venezuelans could verify them. The signatures collected by the opposition were submitted to the CNE on December 19, 2003. 14. The petitioners claimed that on January 30, 2004, prior to the CNE validating the signatures turned over to it, the President of the Republic filed a request with the CNE to hand over a copy of the original signature sheets of all persons signing the petition to congressman Luis Tascón. On February 1, 2004, the executive officers of the CNE authorized the Maisanta Campaign Office, which according to the petitioners was a group represented by congressman Luis Tascón, to photocopy all of the signature sheets submitted by the opposition sectors who had petitioned for the referendum to be held on the term of office of the president. The petitioners contended that as of the time the signature sheets were handed over, there began to be accusations that the signature collection process had been fraudulent and the idea was hatched by the government and the CNE to create a signature challenge procedure to enable each signature of the petition to be either validated or withdrawn. 15. They asserted that on February 15, 2004, on the Sunday television program of the President of the Republic, he urged the country to go to the Web site where the “Tascón List” was posted in its entirety and where people could view who had signed the petition to remove him from office. The petitioners alleged that the Web site was created in February 2004 and that it featured a built-in “Signature-wide Browser” function that made it possible to investigate the names of the signers by entering a signer’s national identity card number. They also contended that this browser function included a form to make corrections, a telephone number to report improper inclusion of names between the signers, and an accusation that signers had committed fraud and were traitors to the nation. In the judgment of the petitioners, as of this point in time, public employees and officials began to be pressured to disavow their signatures or retract them. According to the information provided, the signatures of more than one million citizens were challenged in this process.