64. As regards the applicable legal provision, the prosecutor stated that the acts that Mr. Brewer was accused of were subsumed in the offense of “conspiracy to change the Constitution by violent means”; thus, he concluded that “the evidence listed […] leads to certainty that the accused […] conspired to change the Constitution by violent means […], so that, in the prosecutor’s opinion, the grounds exist to request his public prosecution.” 68 65. In addition, in the indictment, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor requested that the court order “the preventive deprivation of liberty” of Mr. Brewer Carías and the other two accused. As grounds for this, the prosecutor stated that since the “illegal act was punishable by imprisonment, and the criminal action was not subject to a statute of limitations, and that there was evidence to consider that the accused […] are authors of, or participants in, the perpetration of the offense of conspiracy to change the Constitution by violent means, […] and [there is] a reasonable presumption of danger of flight based on the severity of the punishment that could be imposed (18 years’ imprisonment), as well as on the ability of the accused to leave the country because they have sufficient financial resources.” 69 66. On October 24, 2005 the Twenty-fifth Judge agreed to hold the preliminary hearing on November 17, 2005. 70 The same day, Mr. Brewer’s defense requested a non-certified copy of the indictment; 71 and this was accepted and ordered on October 26, 2005. 72 67. On October 26, 2005, the defense asked the Twenty-fifth Judge to guarantee the right of Mr. Brewer Carías “to stand trial a free man” and also asked for “an advance declaration of the inadmissibility of preventive detention,” since Mr. Brewer did not represent a danger to the public, was employed and active in the academic sphere, and with residence and roots in the country. 73 68. On November 8, 2005, the defense submitted a brief to the Twenty-fifth Judge responding to the indictment and rejecting “all aspects, both factual and legal, of the accusation.” Among other matters, they requested the annulment of all the records that formed part of the investigation and presented objections to the indictment (infra paras. 93 and 94). 69. On November 15, 2005, the Court of Appeal of the Judicial Circuit requested the Twenty-fifth Judge to forward the indictment drawn up against Mr. Brewer, “in order to newspaper articles or statements to the press regarding which the prosecution conducted seven interviews with journalists concerning what was mentioned or written; (E) 17 testimonial statements made before the Public Prosecution Service; (F) four videos; (G) two investigation procedures carried out by the prosecution on a video and on telephone calls made by the presumed victim on April 12, 2002; (H) report of the Special Parliamentary Committee to investigate the events of April 2002; (I) two inquiries of the Special Committee of the National Assembly; (J) three articles or books, and (K) one letter signed by Isaac Perez Recao. 68 Indictment of October 21, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14325). 69 Indictment of October 21, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14344). 70 Order of the Twenty-fifth Judge of October 24, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14386). 71 Request by the defense of October 24, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 13, folio 14357). 72 Order of the Twenty-fifth Judge of October 26, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 14, folio 14424). 73 The defense’s appeal against the indictment filed before the Twenty-fifth Supervisory Judge and received on October 28, 2005 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome III, folios 1401 to 1412). 22