32 proceeding and c) “the judges that made up the Trial Court were active service members of a lower rank than some of the officials prosecuting the case.” 122. The representatives alleged that “both the final judgment and the judicial resolutions regarding Francisco Usón´s preventive detention where not sufficiently reasoned.” Additionally, the representatives alleged that the State “violated the principle of equality of arms, providing the accusing party resources denied to the defense[, given that] while the Military Prosector violated legal deadlines for the presentation of documents, the oral and documentary evidence offered by the defense was rejected.” They alleged, furthermore, that Mr. Usón Ramírez “did not have access to all of the available evidence, […] and was not able to a defend himself adequately.” Moreover, the representatives argued that “the proceeding [against Mr. Usón Ramírez] was held behind closed doors,” “with the pretext that the facts object of the case consituted a grave threat to [national] security, without adequatley starting the grounds in the convicting judgment. Finally, the State argued that the Tribunals that tried the case lacked independence because: a) “they were made up of active service members [subject to military discipline and subordination], that did not necessarily have to be attorneys, or attorneys with military assimilation”; b) “both the Military Prosecutor and the president of the Martial Court reported periodically and directly to the Minister of Defense, [who had ordered the investigation], on the state thereof” 106 c) “the day after he declared himself incompetent, the military judge of control in La Guaria was dismissed”; d) “during the proceeding, and particularly on the day that the judgment was to be rendered, the Minsiter of Defense visited the seat of the military tribunals.” 123. In turn, the State alleged that “each and every pleading by the parties […] was resolved […] in a reasoned manner and was replied to.” Also, as regards access to the file, the State indicated that Mr. Usón Ramírez and his “counsel had the necessary time and means to prepare his defense,” and that “there is enough evidence in the file of the acts and statements by his counsel to confirm that they had full access to the file before June 22, 2004.” Moreover, the State indicated that the Second Permanent Military Court of First Instance of Caracas “reviewed the grounds of the decision by the Military Prosecutor with respect to the confidentiality of the investigation [by means] of a reasoned response,” in which it referred to “the preservation of the proceedings during the preliminary investigation [that could] be damaged or disturbed by publicity.” According to the State, “the judges trying General Usón established the need to prevent the entrance of the general public to the courtroom in the file, pursuant to the Criminal Procedural Code, as clarified in the judgment of the High Court of Justice”. Furthermore, the State declared that “the tribunal ordered the doors to be closed [to the public], not at the beginning of the trial, but when the persons related to the Fuerte Mara case testified. At the time, the Fuerte Mara case was under investigation, started with their statements and [therefore,] the proceedings of an investigation and [thus] reserved to third parties.” Moreover, with regards to the independence of the military tribunals that saw Mr. Usón ’s case, it stressed that "Article 25 of the Constitution, [...] one can not order principles of obedience, subordination and discipline in a Military Tribunal [therefore] there is no due obedience nor subordination." 106 Cf. Brief No. 039.04 of May 11, 2004, submitted by the Military Prosecutor, Tennant (EJ) Jesús Arnoldo Rosales Castro, to the Commander of Military Garrison of Caracas, General of Division (EJ) Carlos Enrique Acosta Pérez (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo IV, attachment 89.1, f. 2241); the brief CM-No. 085-04 May 21, 2004, submitted by the Magistrate President of the Martial Court, General of the Brigades (EJ) Damián Adolfo Nieto Carrillo, to the Ministry of Defense, General in Chief (EJ) Jorge Luis García Carneiro (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo IV, attachment 89.1, f. 2384), and the brief CJPM-CM-No. 028-05 of January 27, 2005, submitted by the President of the Martial Court and the Military Criminal Circuit, General of the Brigades Daniel Adolfo Nieto Carrillo, to the Ministry of Defense, General in Chief (EJ) Jorge Luis García Carneiro (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo VIII, attachment 89.5, f. 3910).