15 68. Moreover, the State claimed that the SCJ, in accordance with the Venezuelan legislation, determined that there were merits to prosecute former President Carlos Andrés Pérez and former deputies and senators associated with the case and, as a result, “by application of the special jurisdiction contained in the Constitution in force at that time, the proceedings must be combined, including, based on connection, the persons liable for prosecution for these crimes”. Furthermore, the State explained that the special privilege of the President lies in “the need to protect the majesty of the presidential institution and of who has the investiture at the moment the trial begins”. 69. Article 215 of the Constitution, in its relevant part, provided that: [t]hese are powers of the Supreme Court of Justice: 1. To determine whether or not grounds exist to try the President of the Republic or whomsoever acts in his stead, and, if there are, to continue to hear the case subject to prior authorization by the Senate until a final judgment is rendered. 2. To determine whether or not grounds exist to try members of the Congress, […] and in the event that grounds do exist, to refer the records to the competent Ordinary Court if it is a common offense, or, if it concerns political offenses, to continue to hear the case until a final judgment is rendered, […]. 70. Article 82 of the Organic Law for Safeguarding of Public Assets provided, where applicable, that: [t]he Superior Courts for Safeguarding Public Assets based in Caracas and with jurisdiction throughout the country will be the competent courts: 1) To determine whether to proceed to trial, hear cases and issue judgments in the first instance in the trials of Senators and Deputies of the Congress of the Republic [...] for the criminal offenses established in this Law [...]. 2) To hear and decide appeals and de facto appeals filed against judgments issued by Courts of First Instance. […] 71. Article 89 of the same Law provided that: [w]hen some of the public servants mentioned in Article 82 appear as perpetrators, accomplices or accessories and, simultaneously, there are civil servants or private individuals who must be prosecuted in Courts of First Instance for offenses established in this law, the Superior Court for Safeguarding Public Assets will be the competent tribunal to hear all those cases. […] 72. Article 9 of the CCP established, where applicable, that "[t]here will not be separate cases filed for the same crime or offense even if there are several defendants, except for exceptional cases established by special laws”. Article 27 of the same body of law established that “[o]nly one of the competent tribunals will hear cases of crimes related to each other”. And Article 28 established that: 1. Crimes will be considered related: If committed simultaneously by two or more persons together, if these fall under the jurisdiction of different ordinary courts. 2. Crimes that are committed by two or more persons at different times and places, if the persons acted in concert to commit the crimes. 3. Crimes committed as a means to commit or facilitate the commission of other crimes. 4. Crimes committed in order to avoid prosecution for other crimes. 5. The various crimes a defendant is accused of, if proceedings are instituted for any one of those crimes. 73. On June 8, 1993, the SCJ issued a decision on its competence to hear the instant case in the following terms: