10 36. According to the domestic legislation, an "informative testimony" or a "preliminary examination statement” is that statement rendered by the person being investigated. Hence, Article 75(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the events30 (hereinafter, the “CCP”) indicated that : “[i]n the process of gathering evidence, the Judicial Police will carry out the following actions: a)Take informative statements from accused individuals in accordance with the provisions established in Article 193”. Moreover, Article 192 provided that: “[i]n the days following the detention of the defendant or summons of the defendant to appear in court, plus time allowed for distance travelled, the Court of Instruction will take their testimony in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter” (emphasis added). 37. Furthermore, Article 193 of the CCP indicated that: [...] any time that it is required to hear from the accused in person, the defendant will be informed of the crime about which he is being questioned and he will be read the constitutional provision that guarantees his right to “not be compelled to testify in his case or to incriminate himself, his spouse or his relatives within a fourth degree of consanguinity or second degree of affinity. 38. Taking into account said set of rules, the Court considers reasonable the argument of the Commission according to which if Mr. Barreto Leiva had provided a witness testimony, he would have been sworn in, as the law stipulates,31 and that the fact of having informed him of his right against self-incrimination also proves that he was being investigated in reality. In addition, it is verified that the guarantees provided to Mr. Barreto Leiva are similar to the ones provided to other people who were investigated in the same case – who, later on, were convicted- and very different from the ones provided to those who clearly appeared as witnesses.32 39. The situation of the alleged victim when rendering the second statement dated October 5, 1993, this time before the Substantiation Court of the SCJ, is different. From the very beginning this Court notified him that he would render a witness testimony,33 sworn him in and asked him to provide his full names, age, marital status, address, profession or trade as provided for by the CCP.34 30 Code of Criminal Procedure of Venezuela, Official Gazette N° 748, extraordinary, of February 3, 1962 (record of appendices to the application, volume I, appendix 2, pages 121 to 215). 31 Article 169 of the CCP established that: “ [a]fter witnesses are sworn in, they will be asked to provide their full names, age, marital status, address, profession or trade; and they will be examined in accordance with the provisions of chapters I, II and V of this Article” (emphasis added). 32 For example, it spring from the witnesses José Vicente Rodríguez Aznar and Ruth Oesterreicher de Krivoy that they were legally sworn in and that the "personal circumstances as to which all witnesses must be questioned established by the Code of Criminal Procedure" were applied to them (Cf. statements of José Vicente Rodríguez Aznar and Rught Oesterreicher de Krivoy before the CSFA on March 2 and 3, 1993, respectively, record of appendices to the final written arguments of the State, appendix 4, pages 4365 and 4386). At the same time that Mr. Barreto Leiva, Reinaldo Figueredo Planchard and Carlos Vera were not sworn in and after being advised of the constitutional guarantee against providing testimony that may incriminate them or their relatives, according to Article 193 of the CCP when referring to the “accused person” (Cf. statements of Mr. Carlos Vera and Reinaldo Figueredo Planchard before the CSPA of February 8 and March 4, 1993, respectively, record of appendices to the final written arguments of the State, appendix 4, pages 4015 and 4394 and statement of Mr. Barreto Leiva before the CSPA of February 10, 1993, supra note 29) 33 Cf. summons for Mr. Barreto Leiva issued by the Substantiation Court of the Supreme Court of Justice on September 29, 1993 (records of appendices to the application, Volume I, appendix 7, page 266). 34 Cf. statement of Mr. Barreto Leiva before the Substantiation Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 5, 1993 (record of appendices to the final written arguments of the State, appendix 2, page 3544).