7 attributed it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Large amounts from said adjustment were used to buy United States dollars and were partially invested in a Venezuelan police commission for the Republic of Nicaragua in order to provide security and protection services to the then President of that country, Mrs. Violeta Barrios de Chamarro and several of her ministers, as well as to train the security personnel appointed by said authorities.17 22. The Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter, the “SCJ”) considered that these facts constituted aggravated generic misappropriation of public funds and sentenced those considered responsible for said illegal acts to serve different prison terms. The SCJ sentenced the alleged victim to a year and two months imprisonment and other accessory penalties18 after having found him liable as an accomplice to the crime of aggravated generic misappropriation.19 23. The Inter-American Commission as well as the representative of Mr. Barreto Leiva alleged that the criminal proceeding leading to his conviction disregarded many of the judicial guarantees provided in the Convention, namely: prior notification in detail of the charged filed (Article 8(2)(b); adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense (Article 8(2)(c); the right to defend himself or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choice (8(2)(d); the right to examine witnesses present in the trial and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or of other persons who may shed light on the facts (8(2()f), right to be tried by a competent court (8(1)) and the right to appeal a judgment against him (8(2)(h). 24. The Court shall now proceed to analyze, in that order, the alleged violations of the Convention, but it considers relevant to repeat, as in previous cases,20 that it does not have competence to establish the criminal liability of the individuals. That is why in the instant case, the Court shall not decide on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Barreto Leiva or of any of the people who were tried with him, since this is a matter of the Venezuelan criminal jurisdiction. 25. Furthermore, the Court considers appropriate to, first, refer to the State's argument according to which "during the proceeding conducted before the [SCJ], none of the defendants and later on, convicted people alleged [any] violation of the Rule of Law". In this regard, the Tribunal considers that this type of arguments should have been previously put forward, at the appropriate procedural time of the processing of admissibility before the Inter-American Commission21 and after, if applicable, as a preliminary objection before the Court. In view of the fact that this is not what happened, the Tribunal dismisses these allegations. 17 Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice on May 30, 1996, supra note 16. 18 Said accessory penalties included: being barred from political activity for the duration of the sentence, payment of trial costs, being barred from holding public office for a period equal to the sentence to commence after the sentence had been completed, and the payment of restitution, reparation or compensation for damages caused to public property (Cf. judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of May 30, 1996, supra note 15, page1075). 19 Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice on May 30, 1996, supra note 16, pages 1074 and 1075. 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. supra note 10, para. 134; Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series Nº. 35, para. 37, Case of Lori Berenson Mejía V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C Nº 119, para. 92. 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 88; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C Nº 187, para. 16; Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 21.