decide whether or not the remedy of appeal filed by [his] lawyers was admissible,” 74 and the judge did this on November 17, that year. 75 70. On November 16, 2005, the defense recused the Twenty-fifth Judge; consequently, the preliminary hearing scheduled for November 17, 2005, was not held. 76 This recusal was based on the fact that the Twenty-fifth Judge had incurred in a cause for disqualification, because, on October 20, 2005, he had ruled on the decision to refuse the testimony of Pedro Carmona. Therefore, on that occasion, the defense argued that, since the judge had “issued an opinion on a crucial issue in these proceedings, which was the refusal to obtain very important evidence for the defense of [Mr.] Brewer Carías that could lead to excluding the latter’s criminal responsibility, […] this disqualified him […] from continuing to hear these proceedings.” 77 The Court of Appeal of the Judicial Circuit (Tenth Chamber) declared the recusal inadmissible on January 30, 2006, because it considered that “a ruling on the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence submitted prior to trial does not entail prejudging a person’s guilt or innocence.” 78 71. Once his recusal had been decided, on February 7, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Judge decided to set March 7, 2006, as the new date for the preliminary hearing. 79 The defense submitted an extra-procedural statement by Pedro Carmona on March 1, 2006, and asked that it be admitted as evidence in the proceedings. 80 On March 7, 2006, “the failure to appear of [Mr.] Brewer Carías [was recorded and,] added to this, the Twenty-fifth Judge [was] on leave, and the Twenty-fourth Supervisory Judge headed the court […]; accordingly, it was agreed to postpone [the preliminary hearing] until April 4, 2006.” 81 On April 10, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Judge again postponed the preliminary hearing until May 10, 2006, because he had been challenged by another of the individuals indicted in the proceedings. 82 This new recusal was declared inadmissible on April 26, 2006. 83 B.2.2.4. The preventive detention order 74 Order of the Twenty-fifth Court of November 15, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 16, folio 15792). 75 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Judicial Circuit of November 17, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 16, folio 15799). 76 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court of November 17, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 16, folio 15805). 77 Ruling of the Contingent Court of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16680). 78 Ruling of the Contingent Court of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16680). 79 Order of February 7, 2006, of the Twenty-fifth Judge (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16720). 80 Brief submitted by Mr. Brewer’s defense to the Twenty-fifth Supervisory Judge on March 1, 2006, together with the extra-procedural statement made by Pedro Carmona Estanga (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folios 16833 to 16848). 81 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court for March 7, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16874). 82 Record of the Twenty-fifth Court for April 10, 2006 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 18, folio 16942). 83 Ruling of the Fourth Incidental Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 19, folio 17249). 23