14 refusal to submit to criminal prosecution is not only an affront against the investigation carried out by the Public Ministry but also against the entire justice system. 73. For that reason, the State claims, on June 15, 2006, the Twenty-fifth Temporary Judge ordered the custody of the accused, given the presence of all the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 250 of the COPP, in accordance with Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the first paragraph of Article 251 thereof. 74. In response to the petitioners’ contention that presumption of innocence was violated in that it fell to the defense to counter the charges made by the prosecution service (see supra III A), the 16 State points out that Article 125.5 of the COPP, read in conjunction with Articles 131 and 305, outlines an active and pro-active role for the defense within the investigation in order to guarantee due process of law, and that it can request that other actions or investigations be pursued in order to discredit the charges filed as long as they meet the relevance, need, and usefulness requirements, and as long as they are directly related to the investigation and help shed more light on the facts. 75. In response to the petitioners’ allegation regarding the lack of access to “alleged 17 evidence against the accused, and to witnesses and other evidence he has brought forth” (see supra III A), the State contends that, in the preparatory and intermediate phases, the petitioners confuse basic concepts that are necessary in order to understand the process and to make claims of that nature, such as the investigations, elements of conviction, elements of proof and actual evidence; and that they do not even know at which stage of the Venezuelan system of criminal procedure those should be used. 76. In response to the petitioners’ claim that they have been denied the timely and effective possibility of offering a defense (see supra III A), the State argues that the petitioners do not provide any evidence for that allegation and that their aim is for the Commission to simply take their word that they have not had access to the case file, and, therefore, to a timely and effective defense. The State rejects those arguments and alleges that it has 17 case records signed by legal counsel for Allan Brewer Carías during the proceedings at the Public Ministry, where he acknowledged with his signature that he reviewed each and all parts of the case file without making any observations. Likewise, the State points out that the petitioners reviewed the videos and other annexes connected to the charges filed, as the request forms to review case files indicate. In light of this, the State argues that it seems strange and false for the petitioners to claim that they did not have access to the case file or to what they mistakenly refer to as “the evidence” during the investigation phase. The State points out that during the investigation phase and since the date of the indictment, Allan Brewer Carías and his legal counsel repeatedly appeared at the office of the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor in order to “familiarize themselves with the contents of the case brought against the accused.” 77. With regard to the petitioners’ allegation that “in general… the right of the defense to question witnesses present in court was violated […]” (see supra III A), the State argues that the petitioners confuse “evidence” introduced in court during the trial stage with the “elements of conviction” presented in the office of the prosecutor during the investigation phase. In that regard, the State 16 The State refers to Article 125 of the COPP. “Rights: The accused shall have the following rights: 1. To be specifically and clearly informed of the charged acts; 2. To communicate with family members, lawyer of choice, or association of legal assistance, to report his detention; 3. Be assisted, from the initial stages of the investigation, by a lawyer chosen by the accused or his family members and, otherwise, by a court-appointed attorney; 4. Be assisted, free of charge, by a translator or interpreter if the accused does not understand or speak the Spanish language; 5. Request the Public Ministry carry out investigation procedures to disprove the charges made; (State’s emphasis); 6. Appear directly before the Judge in order to make a statement; 7. Request that the investigation be activated and have access to its content, except in cases which have been declared reserved in certain parts and only for the time that this statement continues; 8. Request the pre-trial detention be declared improper in advance; 9. Be subjected to the constitutional precept that exempts one from making statements and, even in the case of consenting to make a statement, not making it under oath; 10. Not be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment to personal dignity; 11. Not be subjected to techniques or methods that alter free will, even with consent; 12. Not be tried in absentia, except as set forth in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.” Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs No. AGEV/000394 of August 25, 2009, pp. 30 and 31. 17 The State cites paragraph 5 of the petition lodged with the Commission on January 24, 2007.