12 a statement, has to officially learn about the facts he is charged with, not just infer them from the public information or the questions that are made to him. In this way, his response may be effective and without the margin of error that the guesswork produces; the principle of congruence, according to which there must be correlation between the facts informed to the accused and the indictment and the conviction, is guaranteed;37 and the right to defense is ensured. 48. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal concludes that Venezuela violated the right enshrined in Article 8(2)(b) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Barreto Leiva. 3. Granting the accused adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense (Article 8(2)(c)) 49. The Commission and the representative asserted that the investigation process was secret and that Mr. Barreto Leiva could not gain knowledge of the records in the case until he was deprived of liberty. 50. The State indicated that the rules applicable to the criminal procedure in force at the time of the events were observed by the SCJ. It further asserted that the requirement of public nature of the proceedings during the investigative phase “obeys to the requirement of certain degree of secrecy to ensure the success of the investigation”, as well as to “avoid the dishonor or prejudice that an accusation may cause on the people”; the “passion and interest of the private individuals, political parties or groups that may interfere or change the course of the investigative proceedings” and the possibility that the person being investigated “with prior notification, be safe from and evade justice”. 51. Article 60 of the Political Constitution in force at the time of the events, provided: The defendant shall have access to all evidentiary material and to all means of defense provided for by law as soon as the appropriate arrest warrant has been executed. 52. that: Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in its pertinent part, set forth [t]he investigation proceedings, whether initiated by the court itself or at the instance of an interested party, shall remain secret, except for the representative from the Public Ministry, until the investigation is completed. The proceedings will cease to be secret for the accused, for whom an arrest warrant was issued […]. 53. In that regard, the Court refers to the terms stated in the preceding paragraphs (supra para 45 to 46) and further states that though the Court recognizes the existence of the authority, and even the obligation, of the State to guarantee, to the maximum extent possible, the success of the investigations and the imposition of penalties to those who are found to be guilty, the power of the State in this matter is not unlimited. It must conduct its actions “within limits and according to procedures that preserve both public safety and the fundamental rights of the human person.”38 37 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 67 and 68. 38 Cf. Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 124; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C N° 99 para. 86.