34 154. Accordingly, the Commission finds that during the criminal investigation of Allan Brewer Carías by the Public Ministry, there was a violation of the judicial guarantee enshrined in Article 8(2)(c) of the American Convention through the absence of “[…] the adequate means for the preparation of his defense.” c. Right to judicial protection (reasonable delay) 155. The Commission will now analyze the claims relating to the delay in responding to the filing for annulment. The Commission has established that on November 8, 2005, the defense team lodged a request for the annulment of the entire proceedings on account of violations of the right to a fair trial. That filing for annulment was made in the response to the indictment. The petitioners claim that, to date, that annulment application has not been resolved and, consequently, the proceedings remain at the intermediate stage. In response, the State maintains that the filing for annulment has to be resolved at the preliminary hearing, which has not taken place because of the absence of the defendant. 156. On this point, Article 191 of the COPP provides that: Absolute annulment shall apply in cases involving the intervention, assistance, and representation of the accused, in the circumstances and manner established by this Code, or in cases involving breaches or violations of the fundamental rights and guarantees provided in this Code, the Constitution of the Republic, laws, and treaties, conventions, or international agreements signed by 126 the Republic. 157. The Supreme Court of Justice has reiterated in its jurisprudence about the juncture at which filings for annulment are to be resolved, that: […] in criminal proceedings, the control judge will uphold procedural guarantees during the preparatory and intermediate stages, but the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure does not indicate a juncture in the proceedings for filing and resolving breaches of those guarantees, including violations of the Constitution; for criminal proceedings there is no provision similar to Article 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor any referral to that code by the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure. […] In the opinion of this Chamber, it depends on the stage in the proceedings at which it is made: if during the intermediate stage, the judge may resolve it either before the preliminary hearing or as the result of that hearing, depending on the constitutional violation that is alleged, since there are some constitutional breaches that lack the urgency of others, in that they do not irreparably and immediately violate the legal situation of one of the parties. Article 328 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure does not include requests for annulment among the proceedings that the parties may pursue at the intermediate stage, but the Chamber holds it to be possible as a derivative of the right of defense. If such a request for annulment is made, the control judge – according to the urgency indicated by the degree of the violation and given the silence of the law – may resolve it prior to opening the case for trial and at any time prior to such opening; however, it is preferable for it to be done at the preliminary hearing, giving priority to deciding on the points referred to in Article 330 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to allow the parties the right of rebuttal, which is a principle that governs criminal proceedings (Article 18 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure). However, when the annulment overlaps with the object of preliminary objections, it must be resolved at the same juncture as those preliminary objections: in other words, at the preliminary hearing, which additionally guarantees the right of defense of all the parties in the proceedings and 127 abides by the principle of rebuttal. 158. In 2001 the Tribunal already observed that: 126 COPP of December 4, 2009. 127 Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, case file No. 07-0827, decision of July 20, 2007.