violations alleged by the petitioner should be addressed.”28 The petitioner appealed this decision to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, which rendered a decision on April 14, 2005. According to the judgment, the composition of the Court was reconstituted and a new Board of Directors was elected that declared the appeal inadmissible and upheld the decision of February 11, 2005. The petitioner therefore “decided to use the regular and suitable judicial means to oppose the allegedly unconstitutional proceedings […] held by the Seventh Trial Court of the Judicial District of the Caracas Metropolitan Area.”29 37. On February 28, 2005, the Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area published the text of the judgment in its entirety, in which it decided: 1) to convict Tulio Álvarez and sentence him to two years and three months in prison for the offense of ongoing aggravated defamation in accordance with Article 444 of the Venezuelan Criminal Code, in conjunction with Article 99 thereof; 2) to order his compliance with the penalties imposed in addition to the prison sentence, disqualification from political office for the duration of the sentence, and supervision by the authorities for one-fifth the duration of the sentence, as well as the payment of court costs; 3) to keep in place the measure barring him from leaving the country, which was imposed by the same Court on December 15, 2004; 4) to reject the defense asserted by Tulio Álvarez’s defense attorney referred to as “exceptio veritatis”; 5) to order the publication of the judgment in its entirety, one time only, in two nationally circulated newspapers; 6) to rule the motions filed by the petitioner’s defense attorney untimely and therefore inadmissible; and 7) to rule inadmissible the requests for nullity filed by the petitioner’s defense attorney.30 38. In its judgment, the Court found that it had been fully proven that the article “National Assembly’s Savings Bank Looted” was written by the alleged victim and that, although the he did not participate in the design of the publication, “He personally provided the information to the newspaper for purposes of publication.” The Court also found that it had been proven that the alleged victim gave interviews on television programs aired on the channels Globovisión and Televen prior to oral argument at trial, in which he “attributed […] specific acts to Willian Lara, asserting that he had diverted funds from the Savings Bank of the National Assembly.” It similarly found that those statements were picked up by other television channels and by the print media in Venezuela, and “disseminated to the public.” 39. In addition, the Court found that after the publication of the article in the newspaper Así es la Noticia, the National Treasury issued a statement “admitting that the Ministry of Finance was responsible for the delays in the payment of employer contributions to the National Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’ Savings Bank, since it had not received sufficient income because of the coup and the oil strike.” It similarly found, through the testimony of Iván Rafael Delgado Abreu, the Superintendent of Savings Banks, that a report was prepared on the Savings Bank of the National Assembly affirming that all of the banks experienced administrative problems. Nevertheless, it found that the witness “never said that Willian Lara, as president of the National Assembly, had misappropriated the employer contribution funds.” 40. Therefore, the Court stated that, “by continuing to attribute the misappropriation of funds and corrupt acts [to Congressman Lara] through the media […] in spite of the fact that he was already aware that the National Treasury had issued a statement [denying these acts] demonstrates, in this Court’s opinion, that [Tulio Álvarez’s] intent was to defame, which demonstrates criminal intent, that is, the conscious intent to cause harm.” The Court similarly found, based on his statements to the press at the beginning of the trial, that “The defendant continued to repeat the accusations against [Lara], once again exposing him to public scorn and ridicule […] thus carrying out an ongoing criminal offense.” Finally, it concluded that “There is no doubt that the defendant […] exercised no moderation in the accusation and/or publication he made in his column […], as well as in the interviews disseminated prior to the oral argument phase of the public trial […] even 28 Annex 4. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Judgment on writ of amparo No. 05-0361. April 14, 2005. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/abril/475-140405-05-0361.htm 29 Annex 4. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. Judgment on writ of amparo No. 05-0361. April 14, 2005. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/abril/475-140405-05-0361.htm 30 Annex 2. Seventh Trial Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Caracas Metropolitan Area. Judgment of Conviction in Case No.7-246-2004, Case File IV. February 28, 2005. Communication from the petitioner received on September 7, 2006.