that Wilmer Barliza González was detained for a period of close to eight months, and that Luis Guillermo González and Olimipiades Gonzalez were in the same situation for approximately three months. D) The request for compensation 65. On the basis of the brief of May 24, 2001, filed with the Second Trial Tribunal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zulia by María Angélica González, Wilmer Barliza González and Belkis González, they, as well Fernando González, requested compensation, alleging that they suffered an arbitrary deprivation of liberty during their criminal proceedings.74 66. On August 24, 2001, the Second Trial Tribunal decided in favor of those four persons, ordering that the Office of the General Prosecutor pay a monetary sum, the calculation of which would take into account the days of deprivation of liberty.75 67. On October 29, 2001, the Office of the General Prosecutor appealed the decision, alleging that the Tribunal made an erroneous interpretation of the law and that the Public Ministry is not responsible for presumed judicial errors.76 On November 26, 2001, the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals annulled the decision of the Second Tribunal, holding that it had erroneously interpreted the procedural norms on “compensation, reparation and restitution.”77 The Court of Appeals ordered “the absolute nullification of the proceedings and the appealed decision.” 68. On June 13, 2002, the Chamber of Criminal Cassation of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declared inadmissible an appeal of cassation presented by the presumed victims.78 69. On May 29, 2003, María Angélica González, Wilmer Barliza González, Belkis González and Fernando González filed an extraordinary appeal of review against the decision of November 26, 2001, which was declared without grounds on July 30, 2003.79 70. According to the Commission and the representatives, on January 21, 2004, María Angélica González, Wilmer Barliza González, Belkis González and Fernando González requested that the Chamber of Criminal Cassation interpret several articles of the COPP relating to the clauses on compensation when: i) there is a judgment that absolves the accused and ii) an individual has suffered the deprivation of liberty during the proceedings and his or her participation in the act was not proved. The Commission and Cf. Decision No.024-01 of the Second Trial Tribunal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zulia, of August 24, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 12.1 of the Merits Report, fs. 289 to 300). 74 Cf. Decision No.024-01 of the Second Trial Tribunal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zulia, of August 24, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 12.1 of the Merits Report, fs. 289 to 300). 75 Cf. Decision No. 440 of the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zulia of November 26, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 12.2 of the Merits Report, fs. 302 to 313). 76 Cf. Decision No. 440 of the Third Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of Zulia of November 26, 2001 (evidence file, Annex 12.2 of the Merits Report, fs. 302 to 313). 77 Cf. Decision of the Chamber of Criminal Cassation of June 13, 2002 (evidence file, Annex 13.1 of the Merits Report, fs. 315 to 317). 78 Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of July 30, 2003 (evidence file, Annex 13.1 of the Merits Report, fs. 319 to 322). 79 19