complaint against him and subsequently his conviction. The Commission concluded that the Venezuelan State violated the right established in Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention. 135. The representatives argued that the case was filed before a court that did not have jurisdiction to hear a private prosecution, and that the action did not meet the standards necessary for a criminal “accusation” according to the requirements inherent in any formal accusation. They pointed out that on eight occasions the judge hearing the case classified the action brought by the other party as a complaint. Subsequently, the Seventh Court ordered it to be corrected and presented as a private prosecution action. 136. They further argued that the amendment of the complaint created a procedural imbalance, since at the time when it was admitted by the court, the defendant was not advised of his right to request the suspension of the trial to prepare the defense, pursuant to Article 351 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure133 in force at that time. In addition, they alleged that Mr. Álvarez did not have access to videos and evidence prior to the trial, which were available to the complainant when he amended the complaint. They further argued that the judge rejected evidence from the defense that would have established the exceptio veritatis (defense of truth) that Mr. Álvarez had expressed in his article for the newspaper Así es la Noticia. 137. They also alleged the violation of Mr. Álvarez´s right to question a key witness, Mr. José Rafael García, President of the Association of Retirees and Pensioners of the National Assembly. Said witness was accused and arrested for allegedly giving false testimony during the hearing. Likewise, the representatives argued that the decision to disqualify and arrest the witness constituted prejudgment against Mr. Álvarez. Furthermore, the detention of the witness had the effect of inhibiting any other person from testifying in favor of Mr. Álvarez. Consequently, the representatives claimed a violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention. 138. The representatives pointed out that provisional judges were assigned to the proceedings of first and second instance, which would have affected the trial against Mr. Álvarez. The representatives considered that these supposed irregularities would account for the fact that the judges who heard the case against Mr. Álvarez did not act with independence or impartiality. 139. Finally, they argued that changes in the procedural acts and the restrictions to which they were exposed, prevented them from having a clear idea of the charges and the proceedings in order to prepare an adequate defense. Therefore, they asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 8(2) of the American Convention. 140. As to the confusion between the complaint and the private prosecution alleged by the representatives, the State affirmed that both terms are considered synonymous given that the first version of the Code of Criminal Procedure referred to the characterization of the complaint as a means for initiating criminal proceedings for privately actionable offenses. Based on the regulation of 2001, a private prosecution was brought as a means to initiate said Article 351 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure: “Amendment of the complaint. During oral argument, and prior to the closing arguments of the parties, the Public Ministry or the complainant may amend the complaint through the inclusion of a new fact or circumstance that has not been mentioned and that changes the legal classification of or penalty for the act at issue in the oral argument. The complainant may join the Prosecutor’s amendment to the complaint, and the Prosecutor may include the new evidence in the amendment of his or her complaint. In such case, a new statement will be taken from the defendant in relation to the new facts or circumstances alleged in the amended complaint, and all the parties will be informed. The parties will have the right to request a stay of the trial proceedings in order to offer new evidence or prepare their defense. When this right is asserted, the court will suspend oral argument for a reasonable period of time, according to the nature of the facts and the needs of the defense. The new facts or circumstances addressed in the amendment will be included in the order to open the trial.” 133 27