necessary and strictly proportionate. Otherwise, the restriction will be contrary to the Convention.148 Furthermore, such limitation should be counterbalanced by the judge, so that it does not negate the adversarial principle or the “equality of arms” principle. Therefore, the guarantees of adequate time and means must always be observed. 155. In this case it is not disputed that Mr. Álvarez and his lawyers did not have access to the videos that formed the basis of the amendment of the accusation until the moment of the hearing.149 However, it is important to note that after the request for amendments to the complaint against Mr. Álvarez, the judge suspended the hearing on two occasions and granted Mr. Álvarez and his lawyers periods of three and five working days, respectively, to prepare and gather more evidence for his defense. 150Also, the evidence that justified the amendment of the complaint was linked to the crime that was the subject of the initial accusation and concerned interviews given by Mr. Álvarez himself to the Venezuelan media. Therefore, this fact was not unknown to Mr. Álvarez. 156. Notwithstanding the foregoing subtleties, even though the accused was able to review that evidence and present his legal arguments during the public hearing, it is no less true that his lack of access to evidence that was so fundamental for the amendment of the accusation resulted in an imbalance between the prosecution and the defense. This is most important because Mr. Álvarez alleged from the outset that his interest in accessing the videos was justified by the need to ensure that these had not been manipulated in some way. The Court considers that Mr. Álvarez’s inability to gain access to the entire case file and the evidence upon which the amendment of the complaint was based, prevented him from adequately defending himself, in violation of Article (8)(2)(c) of the American Convention. B.4. Right to examine witnesses 157. Among the prerogatives that must be granted to someone who has been accused is the opportunity to examine witnesses against and in his favor, under the same conditions, for the purpose of exercising his defense.151 Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention establishes the “minimum guarantee” of “the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts,” thereby protecting the principles of adversarial and procedural equality. 158. In this case, the witness José Rafael García gave evidence during the hearing on February 2 and 3, 2005, answering 43 questions (supra para. 47). During his intervention on February 3, the prosecution lawyers accused him of giving false testimony. The Seventh Trial Court accepted this accusation and ordered the immediate arrest of Mr. García, who left the courtroom in handcuffs. Furthermore, the judge rejected all of his testimony. Both the Commission and the representatives argued that those events inhibited other defense witnesses who were to testify after Mr. García. In this regard, based on the judgment delivered by the Seventh Trial Court, it is clear that four witnesses testified after Mr. García (Mr. Cruz Chicott Velásquez152, Mrs. María Piñero153, Mr. Iván Delgado Abreu 154 and Mrs. Ibeyise Cf. Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, para. 55; and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 206. Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folios 2765 and 2766. 150 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folio 2633, 2638, 2639 and 2659. 151 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 30 May 1999. Series C, No. 52, para. 154; and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, Members and Activists of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C, No. 279, para. 242. 152 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folios 2433 to 2435. 153 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folios 2435 to 2437. 154 Cf. Judgment of February 28, 2005, folios 2437 to 2442. 148 149 31