10 guarantees, as has been reflected throughout this chapter, and that the record be ordered returned to the Office of the Superior Prosecutor of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas so that it might appoint an impartial prosecutor to open such investigations as it considers necessary, observing the constitutional guarantees of those investigated. 50. They hold that the COPP does not explicitly provide a time limit for adopting a decision on a motion to vacate based on "violation of fundamental rights and guarantees,” as was demanded by Allan Brewer Carías’s defense. Therefore, such a motion should be processed in accordance with the general provision contained in Article 177 of the COPP, for written proceedings in which no other deadline has been set: Article 177. Time limits for decisions. The judge shall adopt decisions on purely procedural matters forthwith. All orders and final judgments that follow oral proceedings shall be issued immediately the hearing concludes. In written proceedings decisions shall be adopted within three days afterward. 51. Under this general and supplementary rule, a decision on the motion to vacate should have been issued within three days after November 8, 2005; however, it would appear that has not yet occurred. In other words, there has been an unwarranted delay of more than four years in the decision on the motion to vacate, which, according to the petitioners constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Convention. 52. They consider that in cases of political persecution, international law comes to the aid of one who seeks to protect himself or herself from the state in question. They indicate that this is the cornerstone of asylum and refuge as legal institutions, but that it is also a humanitarian institution that is broader in scope. They argue that someone who is persecuted has a right not to be returned to his persecutors, to the point that international law imposes on a state that denies refuge or asylum a legal duty not to return the victim to the jurisdiction of the state that is persecuting them, by means of the rule known as non-refoulement. 53. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the State breached its duty to adopt the measures necessary, legislative or otherwise, to uphold the rights protected in the Convention, in violation of Articles 2 and 1(1) thereof. They indicate that the national legislation is not adequate in relation to the appointment and permanence in their posts of judges and prosecutors, to uphold the rights of Allan Brewer Carías and of all Venezuelans to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal. Furthermore, they argue that Article 2 of the American Convention requires states parties to regulate criminal proceedings in such a way as to ensure that judicial guarantees are observed throughout the proceedings, including the investigation stage, which entails adopting all the measures necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled. B. The State’s position 1. Context 54. The State cites the resolutions adopted by the Permanent Council and by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States which define the events that took place between April 12 and 13, 2002, as a “grave disruption of the constitutional order” of Venezuela. The State points out that the assumption of power by Pedro Carmona during that time cannot be justified by an alleged “power vacuum” since the Venezuelan Constitution establishes that the Executive Vice President of the Republic is the official stand-in for the President of the Republic in the various hypotheses regarding permanent or temporary absence from office contemplated in Articles 233 and 234 of this instrument. The State further contends that even if the Constitution did not establish the line of succession to assume the powers of office when the president is absent, it would be up to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to determine the proper procedure to be followed.