related to the defense’s rejection of the evidence offered by the Public Prosecution Service and requiring the admission of evidence that the defense wished to offer during the trial. Indeed, in the brief answering the accusation, the defense, as a “final petition” requested that the court “declare the nullity of all the actions taken in the investigation conducted by the Public Prosecution Service; secondly, [… that it] admit the objections filed against the charges […, that the evidence offered by the Public Prosecution Service [be] rejected, that all the evidence they ha[d] offered [be] admitted [… and] that the [the defendant] stand trial a free man.” 153 This means that it can be found reasonable that it was not considered possible to respond to this brief and the matters it contained relating to the merits before the preliminary hearing and that a fragmented analysis of the brief, as requested by the representatives, could be considered inadmissible. 133. Taking the above into account, and given the content, characteristics, complexity, and length of the brief presented on November 8, 2005, the Court considers that the requests for annulment are not of the type that must be decided within the three-day period indicated in article 177 of the OCCP. B.3.3.3.2. Need for the presence of the accused at the preliminary hearing and reasons why the hearing was postponed 134. The Court considers that, under many procedural systems, the presence of the accused is an essential requirement for the regular and legal implementation of the proceedings. The Convention itself reflects this requirement. In this regard, Article 7(5) of the Convention establishes that “release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial,” so that States are authorized to establish domestic laws to ensure the appearance of the accused. As can be seen, one of the most important objectives of preventive detention, which is only admissible on an exceptional basis, is to ensure the appearance of the accused at his trial, in order to guarantee the criminal jurisdiction and help combat impunity. It also constitutes a guarantee for the implementation of the proceedings. Furthermore, Venezuela has established the prohibition of a trial in absentia by law (supra para. 95). 135. In its report on the use of pre-trial detention in the Americas, 154 the Commission established that the legitimate and permissible objectives of preventive detention must be of a procedural nature, such as to avoid the danger of flight, or the obstruction of the proceedings, and that preventive detention should only be used when there are no other means of ensuring the presence of the accused during the trial or preventing the alteration of evidence. 155 136. Regarding whether the accused must be present at the preliminary hearing in order for this hearing to be held, there is a consensus among the parties on this point. Indeed the representatives have indicated that “the preliminary hearing cannot be held in the absence 153 Brief of the defense filed before the Twenty-fifth Court on November 8, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 15, folios 15194 and 15195). 154 Report on the Use of Pre-trial Detention in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc.46/13, December 30, 2013. Available at: http:// http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/pdl/reports/pdfs/Report-PD-2013-en.pdf 155 In this report (para. 206), the Commission also indicated that “[t]he judge must specify the concrete circumstances in the proceedings that lead to the reasonable conclusion that there is still a real risk of flight, or identify the evidence that still needs to be gathered and explain why it would be impossible to do so with the accused at large. This obligation is based on the need for current circumstances to determine the State’s interest in maintaining the pretrial detention. This requirement is not met when the judicial authorities systematically reject review requests by, for example, merely invoking legal assumptions related to flight risk or any other provisions that, in one way or another, require that the measure be maintained.” 43