Code of Military Justice of Venezuela], 4 and to the accessory punishments of disenfranchisement and loss of the right to rewards, as provided by subsections 1 and 3 of article 407 of said law. 13. It is asserted in the complaint that the judgment of the First Military Tribunal was subsequently confirmed in its entirety on January 27, 2005 by the Corte Marcial del Circuito Judicial Penal Militar [Martial Court of the Criminal Military Justice Circuit]. Acting as an appeals court, the latter denied the appeal lodged by Mr. Usón’s defense on November 23, 2004. The petition also states that on February 28, 2005 a recurso de casación [motion to vacate] was filed against the Martial Court’s decision before Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Venezuela, arguing “the manifest incompetence of the tribunals, and of the organs of investigation of the military criminal jurisdiction, to examine this case.” The petition also states that on June 2, 2005, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela denied the motion to vacate, considering it “manifestly groundless,” and confirmed the conviction handed down by the Tribunal Militar Primero de Juicio Área Metropolitana de Caracas [First Military Trial Court of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas] on October 11, 2004. 14. The petitioner claims that the statements made by Mr. Usón during the television interview were taken out of context in the proceedings under military jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, in his statements, Mr. Usón “did not deny or endorse the theory that those soldiers had been burned with a flamethrower. He did not blame anybody in particular regarding these facts, either.” His statements, according to the petitioner, were in the context of a “debate on a subject of legitimate public interest, related to the Reglamento de Castigos Disciplinarios [Rules of Disciplinary Punishment] applied by the National Armed Forces; to the appropriateness of these punishments delivered without a trial of any kind or procedural guarantees; and to the circumstances under which those soldiers were burned, notwithstanding that they had nothing flammable in that cell.” To make these statements, the petitioner contends, is to engage in a legitimate use by Mr. Usón of his freedom of expression, which “does not [impinge upon] the rights or the reputation of anybody in particular, nor does it [put] national security, public order, public health, or public morals in danger.” 15. In this same respect, the petitioner contends that Mr. Usón’s sentence for the crime of “insult of the National Armed Forces” is disproportionate and therefore violates article 13 of the American Convention in that the imposition of punishments of this nature to protect the honor of an institution such as the National Armed Forces “is [unnecessary] in a democratic society.” 16. The petitioner also states that several violations of articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention were committed over the course of the military criminal proceedings: Mr. Usón “was denied the right to pretrial release”; there “was a violation of the principle of equality of arms, providing the prosecution with resources that were denied the defense”; the “Military Prosecutor’s Office failed to comply with the legal deadlines for the submission of documents [while] testimony and documentary evidence submitted by the defense were rejected,” and “his trial” was kept from being “public.” The petitioner also contends that the Executive Branch interfered several times in the case to determine the content of its judicial decisions, thus violating “the separation of powers.” 17. Finally, the petitioner contends that the prison conditions to which the alleged victim has been subjected constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of article 5 of the American Convention. Specifically, the petitioner claims that Mr. Usón is “confined to his cell 24 hours a day, except three periods of two hours each, of weekly yard and gym hours.” In addition, visits of next of kin who are minors are prohibited, hindering his possibility of communicating with other members of his family, “who must submit to searches each time they visit him,” and, his laptop computer has been confiscated. 4 In Book Two, Title III, Chapter IV, Section IV of the Organic Code of Military Justice of Venezuela, the following crimes are typified: “insults against the sentry, the flag and the Armed Forces.” In this section, article 505 states: Article 505. Insult, offense or scorning of the National Armed Forces or some of its units. The penalty for the person whom in any way insults, offends or scorns the National Armed Forces or any of its units, shall be three to eight years imprisonment. 3