Venezuelan courts acquitted the witness and dismissed the case against him. The State did not dispute these facts. 128. The evidence indicates, as the petitioner alleges, that the witness was testifying about how he had obtained the report from Iván Rafael Delgado Abreu, the Superintendent of Savings Banks, which had been received in the Office of the President of the National Assembly, and about the irregularities committed at the National Assembly’s Workers’ and Retirees’ Savings Bank, as he understood them. 129. In support of the arrest, the Seventh Trial Court maintained that Mr. García lied during oral argument “when he stated categorically that Willian Lara, in his capacity as President of the National Assembly, had failed to provide an accounting of his administration, and that a deposit was made to the account approved by the National Assembly. This allowed the judge, in keeping with the rules of reasoned judgment, to dismiss his testimony because a person who lies about something so important can even more easily lie about anything else.”151 The investigation against the witness was reportedly never pursued, and was subsequently dismissed. 130. It is clear that arresting the defense witness while he was testifying meant that the alleged victim was unable to examine that witness or have his testimony admitted into evidence. The IACHR finds no justification based on protecting the administration of justice that would reasonably allow the State to take such a serious measure, which clearly intimidated the remaining witnesses to the detriment of the petitioner’s right to a defense. The State has not provided evidence in the processing of this petition to reasonably support the notion that the measure was proportionate and necessary for the accomplishment of legitimate aims in a democratic society. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Venezuelan State violated Article 8.2.f of the Convention, to the detriment of Tulio Álvarez. VI. CONCLUSIONS 131. Based on the considerations of fact and law contained in this report, the IACHR concludes that the State of Venezuela violated, to the detriment of Tulio Alberto Álvarez, Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 23 (right to participate in government), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 132. Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF VENEZUELA: 1. Set aside the conviction of Tulio Alberto Álvarez and all of the consequences arising therefrom; 2. Guarantee the political rights of Tulio Alberto Álvarez that are still being violated, including the expungement of any records in his criminal history that disqualify him from continuing to exercise his rights as a citizen; 3. Compensate Tulio Alberto Álvarez for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages arising from the violations established herein; 4. Bring its domestic criminal laws on freedom of expression into line with its obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights and the contents of this report; and 5. Disseminate this report throughout the Venezuelan Judiciary. 151 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.