in view of the gravity of the acts of which he is accused.”82 In addition, it was decided to retain the DISIP as the place of detention.83 First five applications for review of the measure of judicial preventive detention 75. Following the preliminary hearing (supra para. 74), on six occasions Mr. Díaz Peña’s defense counsel, invoking article 264 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,84 applied for a review of the measure of deprivation of liberty that had been imposed. The first five requests were filed during the first two years of preventive detention: on September 785 and December 16, 2004,86 and February 21,87 June 988 and September 19, 2005.89 These requests were denied by decisions of September 15, 2004,90 December 20, 2004,91 February 24, 2005,92 July 8, 200593 and October 11, 2005.94 The said applications were denied on the same grounds relating to the gravity of the offenses and the extent of the damage caused. Request for a release or the application of a less restrictive measure 76. Furthermore, on March 24, 2006, two years and one month after he had been placed in preventive detention, Raúl José Díaz Peña requested his release or, in any case, that “a less 82 Record of the preliminary hearing held against Raúl José Díaz Peña before the Eleventh Court of Caracas (evidence file, tome XI, folios 5887 to 5904). 83 Cf. Record of the preliminary hearing held against Raúl José Díaz Peña before the Eleventh First Instance Examining Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area of June 15, 2004 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 5887 to 5904). 84 This norm, included in Chapter V: Examination and review of precautionary measures, establishes: “Examination and review. The accused may request the annulment or substitution of the judicial measure of preventive detention as many times as he deems pertinent. In any case, the judge must examine the need to maintain precautionary measures every three months, and when he considers it prudent substitute them for other less restrictive measures. The refusal of the Court to rescind or substitute the measure is not subject to appeal.” Code of Criminal Procedure (evidence file, tome XXVI, folio 17528). 85 Cf. Request for review of the judicial measure of preventive detention, presented by Raúl José Díaz Peña’s defense counsel, on September 7, 2004 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 5992 to 5998). 86 Cf. Request for review of the judicial measure of preventive detention, presented by Raúl José Díaz Peña’s defense counsel, on December 16, 2004 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6068 to 6072). 87 Cf. Request for review of the judicial measure of preventive detention, presented by Raúl José Díaz Peña’s defense counsel, on February 21, 2005 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6104 to 6109). 88 Cf. Request for review of the judicial measure of preventive detention, presented by Raúl José Díaz Peña’s defense counsel, on June 9, 2005 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6283 to 6287). 89 Cf. Request for review of the judicial measure of preventive detention, presented by Raúl José Díaz Peña’s defense counsel, on September 19, 2005 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6361 to 6364). 90 In this case, in order to maintain that the offenses charged entailed punishments of more than 10 years, the Court even cited article 460 of the Penal Code, which was not included in the accusation admitted at the preliminary hearing or in the opening of the trial (supra para. 72). Cf. Ruling of the Twenty-eighth First Instance Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area of September 15, 2004 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 5999 to 6006). 91 Cf. Ruling of the Twenty-eighth First Instance Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on December 20, 2004 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6073 to 6078). 92 Cf. Ruling of the Twenty-eighth First Instance Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on February 24, 2005 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6110 to 6115). 93 Cf. Ruling of the Twenty-eighth First Instance Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on July 8, 2005 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6297 to 6300). 94 Cf. Ruling of the Twenty-eighth First Instance Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area on October 11, 2005 (evidence file, tome XI, folios 6378 to 6381). 24