88. Then, in the brief answering the charges, the defense of the accused argued the existence of a confrontation with the deceased and that the facts constituted legitimate defense and/or necessity. In addition, the defense requested the benefit of pre-trial release on bail for the accused, and this was granted on May 26, 1998. 109 89. On July 21, 1998, the Sixth Court agreed to order a reconstruction of the events of the investigation as helpful evidence. 110 On September 26, 1998, Ignacio Landaeta filed a brief before the Sixth Court requesting that the accused be sentenced for the crimes of first-degree murder and misuse of weapons. 111 90. On July 1, 1999, the new Organic Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in Venezuela, establishing a transitory procedural regime that applied to the cases underway at the date of the Code’s entry into force. Under the transition regime, the case was forwarded to the Second Court of the Transitory Procedural Regime of the Judicial Circuit of the state of Aragua (hereinafter “the Second Court”). On October 13, 2000, that court delivered a first instance judgment in which it decided the following: (1) to acquit the accused AJCG of the crime of first-degree murder; (2) to sentence the accused GACF to 12 years’ imprisonment for the perpetration of the crime of first-degree murder, and (3) to decree the dismissal of the case in relation to the offense of misuse of weapons. 112 91. On November 7, 2000, the defense counsel of the agent who had been convicted filed a remedy of appeal against the judgment delivered by the Second Court. On April 25, 2002, the Appellate Court delivered judgment in second instance declaring inadmissible the remedy of appeal filed and confirming the sentence imposed on GACF. 113 92. On June 5, 2002, the defense filed an appeal for annulment arguing that his client had been a victim of erroneous interpretations of the law and that, during the trial, the supposed intention of killing Igmar Landaeta had not been proved. 114 On November 29, 2002, the Supreme Court of Justice, sitting as the Criminal Cassation Chamber (hereinafter “the Cassation Chamber”), issued a ruling annulling the judgment delivered by the Appellate Court and returned the case to that court so that it could decide the remedy of appeal strictly respecting the provisions of the cassation judgment. 115 109 Cf. Brief answering the charges and requesting pre-trial release (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9494 and 9495), and release orders of May 26, 1998 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9515 and 9516). 110 Cf. Order of the Sixth Criminal Court of First Instance of July 21, 1998 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9537). The Court also notes that, during the processing of the proceedings, 41 statements by witnesses and the accused were received. Cf. Statements received during the investigation into the case of Igmar Landaeta (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9109, 9111, 9118, 9128, 9135, 9138, 9141, 9148, 9154, 9169, 9179, 9183, 9212, 9217, 9222, 9225, 9236, 9279, 9282, 9286, 9292, 9296, 9300, 9302, 9307, 9311, 9315, 9328, 9330, 9332, 9435, 9445, 9551, 9553, 9555, 9558, 9561, 9564, 9567, 9570 and 9573). 111 Cf. Brief of Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz of September 26, 1998 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9576 and 9579). 112 According to the Second Court, when Igmar Landaeta was on the ground as a result of being hit by the first bullet, he received a second bullet that killed him, which was unnecessary because the first shot had made it impossible for him to continue to confront the police agents. Thus, the Second Court considered that the last shot was fired by agent GACF at a distance of around 60 centimeters, calculating that it was AJCG who was driving the vehicle transporting the police agents. Cf. First instance judgment of the Second Court of the Transitory Procedural Regime of the Judicial District of the state of Aragua of October 13, 2000 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9604 to 9609). The Court notes that the crime for which the accused GACF was sentenced in first instance differed from the crime of which he was accused by the prosecutor: namely manslaughter (homicidio preterintencional) (supra para. 82). 113 Cf. Appeal brief filed by the defense on November 7, 2000 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9632) and judgment of the Appellate Court of April 25, 2002 (annexes to the answering brief, folio 9659 and 9677). 114 Cf. Appeal for annulment filed by the defense on June 5, 2002 (annexes to the answering brief, folios 9694 and 9700). 115 In this regard, the Cassation Chamber considered that “[t]he remedy of appeal exercised against a judgment delivered under the Transitory Procedural Regime […] requires a new examination of the facts that 24