35 The calling for the preliminary hearing does not suppose the existence of a violation of the right to personal security and to the defense of the plaintiff, because it is in the preliminary hearing when the control judge determines the procedural possibility of the accusation of the prosecutor, on which depends the existence or not of the oral judgment. Meaning that, during the preliminary hearing -through the examination of the proof presented by the Public Ministry-the object of the judgment is determined, and also it is determined if the participation of the indictee in the facts investigated is ‘possible’; therefore the celebration of that hearing did not cause any damage to the 128 indictee in the principal cause […] . 159. In addition, in its general case law, the Supreme Court has ruled that: […] the ruling sought by the plaintiff for the annulment of the prosecutor’s accusation may only be given at the preliminary hearing, which has not taken place due to the defendant’s failure to appear […] Regarding the failure to rule on requests for ‘…joinders, annulments, and amended pleadings…’, in this Chamber’s opinion such requests should be resolved at the preliminary hearing, as stipulated in Article 330 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure; for that reason, the purported threat to or violation of constitutional rights alleged by the plaintiff is not actionable by the Fourth Control Court […], in that said court may only rule on the accused’s request at the 129 preliminary hearing […]. 160. Accordingly, the Commission notes that the annulment filing should be resolved at the preliminary hearing, which did not take place due to the defendant’s failure to appear. Even when Article 327 of the 2005 COPP did not explicitly require the presence of the defendant at the preliminary hearing, jurisprudence had required it. The 2009 amendments to the COPP, on its part, takes this jurisprudence and state that if the preliminary hearing has been postponed on more than two occasions due to the failure to appear of a defendant, the proceedings are to continue with respect to the other defendants and the judge is to conduct the hearing with those who did appear, separating from the case those who did not. 161. In consideration whereof, and given the fact that the reforms to the COPP entered into 130 force in 2009 for all procedures that were on course , the Commission believes that the presence of the accused is required at the preliminary hearing, in order for that formality to be held and for the judge, on that occasion, to resolve the request for annulment lodged by the defendant’s defense team. Consequently, the Commission finds that there was no violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to Allan Brewer Carías. 2. Right of free expression (Article 13 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof) 162. The American Convention guarantees all persons the right to freedom of thought and expression. Article 13 of that instrument provides as follows: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing ... or through any other medium of one’s choice.” 163. In accordance with the right enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention, the expression of thoughts and ideas and their dissemination are indivisible, and restricting the possibilities for their dissemination imposes a constraint on the right of free expression. That right is essential for the development and strengthening of democracy and for full enjoyment of human rights. Full recognition of 128 Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, No. 01-2304, decision of November 16, 2001: Submission from the Ministry of Popular Power for Foreign Affairs No. AGEV/000530 of November 17, 2009, pp. 43 and 44. 129 Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, case file No. 09-0173, decision of October 19, 2009. See also Decision of the Accidental Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the State of Sucre, October19, 2008. 130 First Final Provision of the Partial Reform Law to the Criminal Procedural Organic Code, Official Gazette N˚. 5.930, September 4, 2009 “[t]his code will apply since its entry into force, even for those procedures that are in course and for the facts to be sanctioned that were committed before that, when they are more favorable to the indictee or accused.”.