However, when requests for annulment coincide with the purpose of the preliminary questions, they must be decided at the same time as the preliminary questions; that is, during the preliminary hearing, which also guarantees the right of defense of all the parties to the proceedings and complies with the adversarial principle. 125. Another judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of February 6, 2003, establishes, to the contrary, 147 that: The Chamber observes that the plaintiff founded his claim on the alleged violation of a right that, as in the case of due process, is guaranteed under articles 49 and 257 of the Constitution. [… T]he plaintiff had a pre-existing procedural measure, which was just as, or more, appropriate, expedite, brief and simple as the application for amparo, which was the request for a declaration of nullity of the decision against which he has exercised this present protective action, pursuant to article 212 of the said Code; a claim that must be decided, even as a mere matter of law, by a ruling that must be issued within the three-day period established in article 194 (now 177) of the procedural code. It is worth noting that, in temporal terms, this request for a declaration of absolute nullity should have been substantiated and decided within a time frame that is ostensibly less than the one established by law in relation to the amparo procedure. 126. Moreover, in its Merits Report, the Commission cited a recent judgment according to which: […] the ruling sought by the plaintiff for the declaration of nullity of the prosecutor’s charges may only be given at the preliminary hearing, which has not taken place due to the defendant’s failure to appear. […] Regarding the failure to rule on requests for ‘…joinders, annulments, and amended pleadings…,’ in this Chamber’s opinion such requests should be decided at the preliminary hearing, as stipulated in article 330 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; for that reason, the purported threat to or violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff is not actionable by the Fourth Supervisory Court […], because the said court may only rule on the accused’s request at the preliminary hearing. 148 127. In addition, mention was made of judgments establishing that it was not possible to wait until the preliminary hearing to review measures of preventive detention, but these judgments did not refer to requests for annulment. 149 128. In particular, in its Merits Report, the Commission indicated in this regard that “the presence of the accused is required at the preliminary hearing so that this hearing can be held and for the judge, on that occasion, to decide the request for a declaration of nullity filed by the defendant’s defense counsel” and that, owing to the need for the presence of the accused, the Commission found that “there was no violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with regard to Allan Brewer Carías.” However, it its Admissibility Report, it had alleged that “the failure to decide the appeal for annulment is an indication of delay that can be attributed to the State with regard to the deciding of the claims concerning due process that were included in the appeal.” 150 It had also argued that “the claims […] filed in the domestic courts together with the appeal for 147 Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of February 6, 2003 (Merits Report, tome VII, folio 3234). 148 Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 19, 2009. See also, judgment of the Incidental Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Sucre of October 19, 2008 (Merits Report, tome I, folio 44). 149 Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of July 22, 2004 (Merits Report, tome VII, folios 3251 to 3257); Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of November 4, 2003 (Merits Report, tome VII, folios 3245 to 3250); Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of May 16, 2003 (Merits Report, tome VII, folios 3238 to 3243), and Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of May 11, 2011 (Merits Report, tome VII, folios 3327 to 3336). 150 Admissibility report No. 97/09, Petition 84-07, Allan R. Brewer Carías, Venezuela, September 8, 2009, para. 87, folio 3628. 41