shed more light on the facts. It argues that, in response, the Public Ministry carried out those actions that met the requirements of relevance and need. 63. The State points out that during the investigation phase, the defense filed appeals to all the judicial rulings issued and that those appeals were dismissed by the various chambers of the Courts of Appeal that heard them. 64. The State indicates that on October 21, 2005, Allan Brewer Carías was indicted by the Twenty-fifth Court of Control on charges of Conspiring to Violently Change the Constitution. 65. The State points out that on May 10, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Court of Control received written communication from the defense in which Allan Brewer Carías stated his intention to leave the country based on the false assumption that his constitutional rights and guarantees to a defense had been violated and on the fact that "[…] the distinguished University of Columbia had offered him the opportunity to fulfill an old professional aspiration, to become a member of their faculty, and that he had decided to wait until the circumstances were more conducive to ensuring an impartial trial with respect for his guarantees […]."49 66. As a result, the State points out, on June 2, 2006, the Public Ministry requested that the Twenty-fifth Court of Control issue an order of judicial preventive detention against Allan Randolph Brewer Carías, even though the charging documents included a request for such an order. The State argues that his refusal to submit to criminal prosecution is not only an attempt against the investigation carried out by the Public Ministry but also against the entire system of justice. 67. The State argues that, consequently, on June 15, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Court of Control issued the order of judicial preventive detention No. 010-06 against the accused, based on the fact that all the requirements for the issuance of the order had been met as established under the provisions of Article 250 and in accordance with Article 251 first paragraph, subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the COPP.50 The State points out that the arrest warrant was forwarded to the Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs AEGV/000394 August 25, 2009, page 24. The State cites Article 250 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (COPP): “Origin. The oversight judge, at the request of the Public Ministry, may order the pre-trial detention of the accused, provided that the existence is attested of: 1. A punishable act that deserves a deprivation of liberty and whose criminal actions have not evidently been prescribed; 2. Due cause to presume that the accused has committed or participated in the commission of an offense; 3. Reasonable cause, based on an appraisal of the circumstances in each case, to assume the risk of flight or obstruction in the search for the truth with respect to a specific investigation. (Underlining by the State). Within the twenty-four hours following the prosecutor's request, the oversight judge will make a decision with respect to the request made. Should it be deemed that the requirements set forth in this article are met and that pre-trial detention is, therefore, applicable, an arrest warrant shall be issued for the accused person against whom the measure has been requested. Within forty-eight hours following his detention, the accused will be brought before the judge, who, in the presence of the parties and the victims, if there are any, will decide whether to maintain the imposed measure or substitute it for one less severe. If the judge agrees to maintain the pre-trial detention measure during the preliminary phase, the prosecutor should present the charges, request the stay of the proceedings or, in such a case, close the proceedings, within thirty days following the judicial decision. This lapse of time may be extended up to a maximum of an additional two weeks, provided that the prosecutor requests so at least five days before the extension expires. In this case, the prosecutor should advance his request and the judge will decide what is appropriate after listening to the accused. After this period of time and its extension, if so be the case, without the prosecutor having filed the charges, the detained person will be released by decision of the oversight judge, who may impose another precautionary measure. In any case, the trial judge, at the request of the Public Ministry, shall order the pre-trial detention of the accused when it is justifiably presumed that this person will not comply with the decisions in the case, in accordance with the procedures established in this article. In exceptional cases of extreme need and urgency, and provided the existence of the suppositions set forth in this article, the oversight judge, at the request of the Public Ministry, shall authorize the suitable detention of the accused. This authorization should be ratified by a decision within twelve hours of the detention, otherwise the procedures will follow that are set forth in this article.” “Article 251. Risk of Flight. In making a determination as to the risk of flight, particular consideration shall be given to the following circumstances: 1. Roots in the country, determined by domicile, habitual residence, family home, business or work activities, and facilities for permanent departure from the country or remaining in hiding; (Underlined by the State). 2. The possible penalty in the case; 3. The extent of the harm caused; 4. The behavior of the accused during the proceeding or in other previous proceedings, to the extent that it indicates his willingness to submit to criminal prosecution; (Our underlining). 5. The behavior prior to the commission of the offense. First Paragraph: A risk of flight is presumed to exist in cases involving offenses punishable with a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more. (...)”. 49 50 ] 14