a) According to the petitioner, an application for amparo filed on August 14, 2006, by Mr. Díaz Peña’s defense counsel indicated that, when the latter left the Prosecutor’s offices with his father in order to take the metro, they were intercepted by DISIP agents who “without showing them the arrest warrant” proceeded to detain him, and some of his belongings were handed over to his father. However, in the arrest report, these agents stated that they were passing by the Prosecution Service’s building and observed that there was an individual acting suspiciously; they asked him for his identification document and when they requested a background check on (Raúl Díaz Peña), he appeared with an arrest warrant against him, so they arrested him and took him to the DISIP.66 b) According to the Police Record of February 25, 2004, the Deputy Police Chief, attached to the DISIP, placed on record that he was on his way to the Sixty-second Prosecutor's office in the company of two Chief Inspectors and two Inspectors, in order to interview the prosecutor. Regarding the arrest, the record states textually “[…]outside the said Prosecutor’s office we saw an individual […] who, upon becoming aware of our presence, began to behave in a nervous and suspicious manner so that, immediately, we began to comply with the usual legal procedures. We identified ourselves as police officers attached to this office, and told him the reason for our action when ordering him to freeze; then, under article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, we proceeded to conduct a body search; he was immediately asked for his national identity document, which was investigated by radio by the duty officer with the Information and Documentation Division of our Service; the duty officer advised that the said individual was required under arrest warrant No. 002-04 of January 22, 2004, issued by the Eleventh First Instance Examining Court of the Criminal Judicial District of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, headed by Judge Denair Nieves Bastia’s, for the offenses of public intimidation, against public and private interests, damage to public property, and minor injuries; consequently, we proceeded to arrest him, under article 117 of the rules for police action, not without first reading him his rights as an accused as established in article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”67 67. The representative maintained that the police record dated February 25, 2004, is “plagued with lies, it has been altered, and does not indicate the real place or where the [presumed] victim was arrested, and this was supported with impunity by both the Public Prosecution Service, represented by Prosecutor Landaeta, and by the Eleventh Examining Judge, today Justice of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, Deyanira Nieves.” 68. In the account he gave to the Court, Mr. Díaz Peña stated: “that day, I was going to the headquarters of the Public Prosecution Service with my lawyer and my father. When we arrived, we were interviewed by the prosecutor Gilberto Landaeta and, at that moment, the only thing he did was tell me: ‘look, I have asked for an arrest warrant against you signed by the court; I recommend that you present yourself to the courts.’ When I asked the reason, he told me: “well, for the same reasons that your pickup truck was seized.’ And I said: ‘ok, that’s all right, I’ll go straight to the court to present myself.’ He said, wait here a moment, he withdrew and went to make a telephone call to the DISIP offices so that at the headquarters of the Prosecution Service, they would not allow me to present myself before the court.”68 69. On February 26, 2004, the “hearing to present the accused” was held. During this hearing the Eleventh Court “ordered the judicial measure of preventive detention, under article 250, 66 Cf. Application for amparo filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 14, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIV, folio 16499). 67 Police record of February 25, 2004 (evidence file, tome X, folios 5659 to 5660). 68 Testimony given by Raúl José Díaz Peña by electronic audiovisual means before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the public hearing held on December 1, 2011. 21