Pacheco155). Specifically, the witness Cruz Chicott stated that he felt no pressure to testify. 156 In addition, the affidavit rendered by Mrs. Ibéyise Pacheco, a witness for Mr. Álvarez and for the State in the oral trial, were included in the case file. In her statement before the Court, Mrs. Pacheco stated that she had learned of the “humiliation” to which Mr. García was subjected, along with other witnesses brought by the defense of Mr. Álvarez. 157 159. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the accusation and subsequent arrest of Mr. García during the public hearing had, at least, the effect of causing concern or fear among the subsequent witnesses in the oral hearing. This effect is corroborated in the judgment delivered by the Seventh Trial Court, and in Mrs. Pacheco’s affidavit. Moreover, the Seventh Trial Court’s handling of the evidence (Mr. García’s statement) lacked the minimum guarantees of due process established in Article 8(2) of the Convention, given that, the simple accusation by Mr. Lara’s lawyer, claiming that the witness had lied, prompted the judge to order his arrest under Venezuelan law,158 without any justification or argument. Furthermore, he completely rejected Mr. García’s testimony, considering that he had lied and that “whoever lies in relation to such an important matter, is more likely to do so regarding any other fact.”159 This constituted a violation of the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to have that evidence assessed during the proceedings, in violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention. 160. For all the above reasons, the Court concludes that the inability to gain access to the entire case file and the evidence on which the amendment of the accusation was based prevented Mr. Álvarez from adequately defending himself, in violation of Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention. The Court further concludes that the accusation against a witness and his subsequent arrest during the public hearing had at least the effect of causing concern or fear among the witnesses who followed in the oral trial, and constituted a violation of the right of the defense to question witnesses present in the court and to have that evidence assessed in the legal proceedings, in violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Tulio Álvarez Ramos. VIII-3 RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE 160 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folios 2445 to 2450. Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folio 2433: “QUESTION: do you feel free to testify in this Trial. ANSWER: Yes, but if you guarantee that what I say in this trial is important and I do so without any pressure.” 157 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mrs. Ibéyise Pacheco (evidence file, folio 2816). 158 Article 345 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure of Venezuela (2001): “Crime in a hearing. If a person commits a crime during a hearing, the court shall order his detention and shall prepare a report with the pertinent information; he shall be brought before the appropriate official of the Public Ministry, and a copy of the necessary background to the matter shall be forwarded, in order to proceed to the investigation. Any person who, when questioned at a public hearing by the Judge or by the parties, lies on the general rules of law, shall be punished with six to eighteen months imprisonment or a fine equivalent in Bolívares of ten to forty tax units”. Article 243 of the Criminal Code of Venezuela: “Any person who testifies as a witness before the judicial authority, who makes false statements, denies the truth or remains silent, entirely or in part, regarding the facts on which he is questioned, shall be punished with a prison term of fifteen days to fifteen months. If the false testimony has been given against a suspect in a crime or in the course of a criminal trial, the prison term shall be from six to thirty months, and if those two circumstances coincide, it shall be eighteen months to three years. If the false testimony has resulted in a sentence of imprisonment, the prison term shall be three to five years. If the testimony has not been rendered under oath, the penalty shall be reduced by one-sixth to one-third.” 159 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folios 2475 and 2476: “Finally, it is hereby established that the testimony of the citizen JOSÉ RAFAEL is rejected, having been proven during the oral and public debate that he lied when he categorically affirmed that the citizen WILLIAN LARA, as President of the National Assembly, had not presented the accounts of his administration, and alleged the appropriation of an account approved by the National Assembly, a circumstance that permits the judge, in accordance with the rules of sound judgment, to reject his testimony, in consideration that a person who lies in relation to such an important matter, is more likely to do so regarding any other fact.” 160 Article 22 of the Convention. 155 156 32