61. On August 2, 1999, the legal representative of the four persons filed a request for alternate precautionary measures alleging that the Prosecutor had not presented an accusation within the procedural moment established in Article 259 of the COPP and the absence of a “danger of fleeing and obstruction,” pursuant to Articles 260 and 261 of the COPP.68 On August 16, 1999, the legal representative reiterated, in a hearing, the request made on the 2nd, and, on the same 16th, the Ninth Enforcement Court accepted the accusation presented by the Fourth Prosecutor of the Public Ministry and resolved to continue the preventive detentions, by claiming that “they met the provisions established” in Article 25969 of the COPP.70 The resolution did not contain the grounds that led to such a conclusion. 62. On September 29, 1999, the Mixed Tribunal of the First Court ordered the immediate release of Fernando González, María Angélica González, Belkis Míreles González and Wilmer Antonio Baliza González. With respect to the statements of the witnesses who accused the alleged victims, the Tribunal indicated that “there were contradictions that impact on the certainty and the veracity of the statements.” As to Fernando González, the Tribunal considered that it was not logical “to think that a person involved in a crime would present himself before a court with the material evidence that involves and compromises himself.”71 The same day, the Tribunal issued the release “tickets.”72 63. On October 20, 1999, the Second Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit held the judgment to be final since the period to present an appeal had passed. 73 64. The facts demonstrate that María Angélica González, Belkis González and Fernando González were deprived of their liberty for a period of close to ten months; Cf. Communication of August 2, 1999 (evidence incorporated de oficio, supra para. 21; evidence file, fs. 2910 to 2912). 68 “Article 259. Proceedings. The judge […] at the request of the Public Ministry, may decree the deprivation of liberty of the accused provided that there is proof of: 1. A punishable act that merits the deprivation of liberty and whose criminal action is not obviously prescribed; 2. Substantive grounds of conviction to believe that the accused has been the perpetrator or accomplice in the commission of the punishable act; 3. A reasonable presumption, in view of the circumstances of the specific case, of a danger of flight or obstruction in the search for truth with respect to the specific act of the investigation; In the event that the accused is apprehended, he must be placed at the order of the judge so that the judge might decide, after hearing him, within the following forty-eight hours, on release or preventive detention, when the Public Ministry requests the application of this measure. Having decreed the judicial preventive detention during the preparatory stage, the prosecution must accuse, request the acquittal or, if pertinent, close the case, no later than twenty days following the judicial decision When this period has elapsed without the prosecutor presenting the accusation, the detainee shall be released, by a decision of the control judge, who can apply an alternate measure.�� (The text of Article 259 was transcribed by the representatives in their brief with petiitions and motions.) 69 Cf. Decision of the Ninth Criminal Judge of August 16, 1999 (evidence incorporated de oficio, supra para. 21; evidence file, fs. 2907 to 2909). 70 Minutes of the debate of the Mixed Tribunal of the Judicial Circuit of Zulia of September 28-29, 1999 (evidence file, Annex 11 of the Merits Report, fs. 273 to 287). 71 Cf. Communication No. 115-99 sent to the person in charge of the release “ticket” of the Director of the National Penitentiary (evidence file, Annex 5 of the Merits Report, f. 235). 72 Cf. Decision of the Second Trial Judge of October 20, 1999 (evidence file, Annex 5 of the Merits Report, f. 238). 73 18