accused and the magnitude of the harm caused by the unlawful act that is being investigated.” Lastly, it related the acts charged to acts of a terrorist nature and punishable violations of human rights.”107 81. On June 22, 2006, the defense counsel filed an application for annulment108 against the decision denying the appeal,109 which was declared inadmissible on June 28, 2006, because it was not “the appropriate means of indicating discrepancy with the decision issued.”110 Application for amparo 82. On August 14, 2006, Mr. Díaz Peña’s lawyer filed an “application for amparo” before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, on the basis of articles 1 and 4 of the Organic Law for the Protection of Constitutional Guarantees and Rights, “so that the superior court would re-establish immediately the legal situation that had been breached and violated by the decision of the Twenty-third Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area, of March 29, 2006, rejecting the substitution of the measure of deprivation of liberty requested by this representative, pursuant to the provisions of article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus violating constitutional principles and guarantees such as: the right to personal liberty, to due process, to presumption of innocence, and to re-establishment of the legal situation that was harmed by error of law, contained in articles 44, and paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 of article 49 in relation to article 257 of the Constitution violated by the said decision.”111 The application for amparo alleged, among other matters, the existence of a procedural delay that could not be attributed to Mr. Díaz Peña, the conditions in which the deprivation of liberty was executed, the absence of sufficient evidence against him, his permanence in pre-trial detention for longer than established by law, and the constant violation of his right to the presumption of innocence.112 83. On December 19, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared itself incompetent to hear the application for the protection of constitutional protection and forwarded the case file to the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area.113 In addition, “the Chamber urge[d] that, if the plaintiff’s affirmation was true that the above-mentioned court had unduly delayed holding the oral public hearing, the court put 107 Cf. Ruling of the Special First Incidental Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area for hearing cases concerning crimes related to terrorism on June 19, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIII, folios 15629 to 15643). 108 The regulation concerning the appeal for annulment in the Code of Criminal Procedure is as follows: Article 444. Admissibility. The appeal for annulment shall be admissible only against decisions that merely relate to substantiation, so that the court that issued them may re-examine the matter and deliver the appropriate decision. Code of Criminal Procedure (evidence file, tome XXVI, folio 17537). 109 Cf. Appeal for annulment filed on June 22, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIII, folios 15654 to 15657). 110 Ruling of the Special First Incidental Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area for hearing cases on crimes related to terrorism on June 28, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIII, folios 15662 to 15664). 111 Cf. Application for amparo filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 14, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIV, folios 16496 to 16504). 112 Cf. Application for amparo filed before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 14, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIV, folios 16496 to 16504). 113 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 19, 2006 (evidence file, tome XXIV, folios 16551 to 16565). 27