117 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure (COPP), Mr. Díaz Peña was not read his rights nor shown the warrant for his arrest. 16 The petitioner notes that on February 26, 2004, a hearing for presentation of the detainee was held at the Eleventh Court of Control 17 and that on February 27, 2004, the same court ordered the preventive judicial deprivation of liberty of Mr. Díaz Peña based on the existence of sufficient elements for showing the commission, in the degree of complicity, of the crimes for which he was arrested. 18 12. The petitioner alleges that on April 6, 2004, the representative of the Public Ministry lodged an accusation against the alleged victim, and that on April 22, 2004, Raúl José Díaz Peña’s defense filed a motion for nullity due to failure to abide by the forms and conditions established in the law and also asked that the expert examination offered by the Public Ministry be annulled and requested that the detention be revoked. 19 She alleges that in June 2004 a constitutional amparo action was filed before the Eleventh Court, which was rejected by the judge in charge. The petitioner argues that on June 15, 2004, the preliminary hearing was held in which the Eleventh Court admitted in full the accusation brought against Mr. Díaz Peña, embraced the legal characterization of the facts offered by the Office of the Prosecutor, determined that an oral and public trial should begin, and considered it proper to keep the order of deprivation of liberty in place. 20 13. As for the prolonged preventive detention of Raúl José Díaz Peña, the petitioner notes that on September 7, 2004, it was asked that the measure of preventive detention be reviewed 21; the negative response was handed down on September 15, 2004, by the 28thCourt considering the existence of well-founded indicia of the participation of the alleged victim in the attacks and the presumption of flight provided for in Article 251 of the COPP 22 since, if the accused were proven guilty, the sentence to be imposed could exceed 10 years. 23 She alleged that 16 The petitioner cites Article 117 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, Gaceta Oficial No. 5,558 of November 14, 2001: “Rules for police action. The investigative authorities of the police should detain the accused in the cases that this Code orders, with the following principles for action…6th. Inform the detainee of his or her rights; 7th. Communicate to the relatives or other persons related to the accused the establishment where he or she is detained; 8th. Set the place, day, and time of the detention in an inalterable document.” 17 The petitioner cites the Order of Hearing for Presentation of the Accused. Case No. CO-11-2565-03, 11th Court of First Instance (for Review) of the Judicial District for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, February 26, 2004. Attached to the original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 18 The petitioner makes reference to the crimes of conspiracy (agavillamiento), public intimidation, crimes against the conservation of public and private interests, damage to public property, and moderate lesions (Article 287 in relation to Articles 84(1), 297, 344, 347, 355 475, 476, and 418 of the Criminal Code of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). She also cites the Judicial Order Preventive Deprivation of Liberty, Case No. CO-11-2565-03, 11th Court of First Instance (for Review) of the Judicial District for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, February 27, 2004. Attached to the original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 19 The petitioner cites the brief submitted to the 11th Court of First Instance (for Review) of the Judicial Circuit for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, April 22, 2004. Attached to the original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 20 The petitioner cites the Record of Preliminary Hearing, 11th Court of First Instance (for Review) of the Judicial Circuit for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, June 15, 2004, Accused: Raúl José Díaz Peña and Silvio Daniel Mérida Ortiz. Attached to the original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 21 The petitioner makes reference to Article 264 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, Gaceta Oficial No. 5,558 of November 14, 2001: “Examination and review. The accused may request reconsideration or replacement of the judicial measure of preventive deprivation of liberty as many times as he or she sees fit. In any event the Judge must examine the need to maintain the precautionary measures every three months, and when he or she deems it appropriate he or she shall replace them by other that are less cumbersome. The refusal of the court to reconsider or replace the measure shall not be subject to appeal.” 22 The petitioner makes reference to Article 251 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, Gaceta Oficial No. 5,558 of November 14, 2001: “… First Paragraph: Danger of flight is presumed in cases involving acts punishable by deprivation of liberty of at least 10 years. In such a situation, the prosecutor of the Public Ministry, so long as the circumstances in Article 250 are met, shall request the Measure of Preventive Judicial Deprivation of Liberty. In any case, the judge may, depending on the circumstances, of which he or she shall give a reasoned explanation, reject the prosecutor’s petition, and impose on the accused a replacement precautionary measure. The decision handed down may be appealed by the prosecutor or the victim, whether or not the victim has filed a complaint, within five days of its publication.” 23 The petitioner cites the 28th Court of First Instance (for Review) of the Criminal Judicial Circuit for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, resolution of September 20, 2004. Attached to the original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 4