12 On April 16, 2004, Retired Brigadier General Francisco Vicente Usón Ramírez was a special guest together with citizen Patricia Poleo at the television interview called “La Entrevista” broadcast at 05:50 a.m. by Channel 10 (Televen), moderated by journalist Marta Colomina. Such citizens were interviewed in the program to discuss “flamethrowers,” in relation with the events that had recently occurred at Fuerte Mara […] specifically in a cell […], where some [soldiers] were burnt. Patricia Poleo started the discussion by showing that such soldiers had been burnt with a flamethrower. The Brigadier General agreed and reinforced what such journalist had said. Then he explained the creation, components and use of that type of arm, indicating the procedure to take them out of the corresponding warehouses […]. He also agreed that on the basis of the soldiers’ burns, there had been premeditation and made other comments, not as an expert but in 33 his personal opinion. 40. Based on these facts, the First Military Tribunal declared the following: Brigadier General (EJ) FRANCISCO VICENTE USÓN RAMIREZ used abusive comments which slander and offend the National Armed Forces since they are against the internal and external social life. He has given an opinion and affirmed matters involving the military disagreeing with reality, using audiovisual means, in this case, the Television interview “La Entrevista” in Televen 34 Channel, on April 16, 2004. 41. Likewise, in such verdict of guilt, when assessing the punishment to be imposed on Mr. Usón Ramírez, the First Military Tribunal pointed out that “the crime committed by the accused goes against national security.”35 42. In the appeal judgment of January 31, 2005, the court of appeals dismissed the motion for appeal submitted by Mr. Usón Ramírez and confirmed the guilty verdict, pointing out that the First Military Tribunal concluded that “the facts that occurred at Fuerte Mara were contrary to what Retired Brigadier General (EJ) FRANCISO VICENTE USÓN RAMIREZ had expressed; therefore, he committed slander against the National Armed Forces for having affirmed a false event.”36 43. On June 2, 2005, the Criminal Court of Appeals of the High Court of Justice dismissed the appeal “since the appeal submitted by counsel for the defense of the accused was groundless;”37 therefore, finalizing the judgment and charge imposed. * * * 44. The parties thereto submitted various allegations about these facts that may be divided into two types: 1) the alleged need to verify whether the codification met the requirements of exhaustion and precision, (infra paras. 45 to 88) and 2) the alleged need to ensure the protection of national security and public order by determining any further liabilities to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression (infra paras. 89 to 94). The Court shall proceed to analyze these matters in the order mentioned above. Additionally, the Tribunal shall refer to the allegations by the parties in regards to the conditions imposed on Mr. Usón Ramírez when granting him the benefit of parole, insofar as such conditions affected his right to freedom of thought and expression (infra paras. 95 to 100). Lastly, 33 Judgment of the First Military Tribunal of Judgment on November 8, 2004, supra note 22, f. 331. 34 Judgment of the First Military Tribunal of Judgment on November 8, 2004, supra note 22, f. 396. 35 Judgment of the First Military Tribunal of Judgment on November 8, 2004, supra note 22, f. 397. 36 Judgment of the Martial Court of the Criminal Military Court of Caracas on January 27, 2005, supra note 22, f. 1884 37 Judgment of June 2, 2005 emitted by the Court of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 22, f. 1555.