32 independence of the judiciary that inspires legitimacy and enough confidence not only to parties at trial, 124 but to all citizens in a democratic society. 146. In the present case, three temporary judges during the preliminary stage were in charge of the criminal procedure against Brewer Carías. This situation itself, constitutes, an affectation to judicial guarantees in this particular case. The Commission also notes that on May 11, 2005 Temporary Judge Twenty-fifth Manuel Bognanno ordered the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor to allow full access to the casefiles to the defense. On May 30, 2005 Sixth Provisional Prosecutor requested the declaration of annulment to that decision. On June 5, Judge Bognanno requested Sixth Provisional Prosecutor the case-file, and on June 27 2005 she required and indication of the norm that imposes to the Public Ministry the obligation to send the case-files before it. On June 27, 2005 the Judge informed Public Ministry’s Senior Prosecutor about possible “obstructive actions” by the Provisional Prosecutor Sixth in the case and requested the Public Ministry to “take an objective attitude, oriented to collaborate and not to hinder the actions of the jurisdictional organ”. Manuel Bognanno was suspended from his position on June 29, 2005 and a new Temporary Judge was designated to take the procedure. 147. In sum, judge Bognanno was dismissed and replaced two days after issuing a complaint for the lack of compliance of his order in the defendant’s favor for him to be given access to the entire case file. In light of the above analysis, the Commission believes that in the case at hand, the regulations and praxis governing the appointment, removal, and provisional status of judges in Venezuela affected Allan Brewer Carías’s right to an independent judge. 148. Based on the preceding considerations, the Commission concludes that the fact that the prosecution of Allan Brewer Carías was conducted by temporary prosecutors and judges meant, as has been shown, that the guarantees of independence and impartiality were lacking. Consequently, the State failed to ensure the means necessary to provide justice in the investigation and criminal prosecution of Allan Brewer Carías, as required by Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. b. Adequate means for preparing a defense 149. Secondly, the Commission will analyze the claims alleging the purported inability to secure photocopies of the case files during the investigation, and alleging that the defense team was only allowed to transcribe by hand the different documents in the case file, thus denying them the timely and effective possibility of offering a defense. The State, in contrast, claims that it has 17 deeds signed by Allan Brewer Carías’s legal representative during the proceedings before the Public Prosecution Service, indicating that he reviewed the case file but made no comments thereon. 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. 150. The Commission has established that on May 4, 2005, the defense asked the Twentyfifth Temporary Judge to exhibit all the videos, to admit the testimony offered, and to give access to copies of the case file. On May 11, 2005, the Twenty-fifth Temporary Judge, Manuel Bognanno, ordered the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor to allow the defense “full access to the case file and videos held in connection with the proceedings.” In turn, on May 30, 2005, the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor asked the Twenty-fifth Temporary Judge and the Ninth Chamber of the Court of Appeal to annul that decision, arguing that from the date of Allan Brewer Carías’s indictment up to May 9, 2005, the accused’s representatives were able to review all items in the case file. However, the defense had not been given the copies they requested. 151. On June 10, 2005, Judge Bognanno asked the Sixth Provisional Prosecutor to refer the case file to him, to which she replied asking him to indicate the provision on which that request was based and which required the Public Ministry to report on and hand over the documents that it holds. The judge 124 I/A Court H. R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Judgment of June 30, 2009, Series C No. 197, para. 67.