19. She further alleges that the label of “terrorist” that the State has used to refer to Mr. Díaz Peña has denigrated his good name in the eyes of public opinion, which the petitioner considers to violate the right to humane treatment protected at Article 5 of the American Convention. 37 She also notes that the alleged victim’s exposure to public mockery, calling him “golpista, fascista y terrorista” (coup-monger, fascist, and terrorist) and the fact that these events are part of the new textbooks of the Venezuelan educational system, constitute a violation of his right to privacy, set forth at Article 11 of the American Convention. 38 20. As for the delay in the criminal procedure, the petitioner alleges that it has been put off on numerous occasions by the recusal, rotation, or removal of the judges in charge. She notes that the trial should have begun 90 days after the hearing of July 15, 2004, yet due to the failure to appoint the lay judges 39 the defense counsel requested a one-person trial, and the case was assigned to the 28th Court of First Instance. The petitioner notes that this situation was repeated on several occasions and in different courts. 40 The petitioner argues that afterwards the judge in charge at the 28th Court disqualified herself from hearing the matter since it had come before her at the 11th Court. 41 21. The petitioner notes that the case was assigned to the 22nd Trial Court. On November 3, 2005, the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice removed the judge in charge of the proceeding, which, according to the petitioner, evidences the political nature of the case against the alleged victim. She argues that on November 2, 2005, the Oral and Public Trial was to be held, but that it wasn’t due to the unjustified failure to appear (for the fourth consecutive time) of the representative of the Office of the Prosecutor. She alleges that also on November 2, 2005, the judge proceeded to prepare two resolutions, one calling on the Public Ministry to take disciplinary measures against the prosecutor in charge of the case 42 since the procedural delay caused by his failure to appear violated due process, and the other indicating that on November 7, 2005, Silvio Mérida Ortiz, tried along with Raúl Díaz Peña, completed two years in detention without judgment, which would require her to decree a less cumbersome precautionary measure than deprivation of liberty, according to Article 244 of the COPP. 43 22. The petitioner alleges that after the removal, another judge from the same 22nd Trial Court took cognizance of the case. She alleges that on December 2, 2005, Silvio Mérida Ortiz declared that he was tortured for seven days and forced to testify against Raúl José Díaz Peña, who he said he had only seen in Plaza Altamira. 44 She also alleges that on three occasions, December 5, 2005, January 30, 2006, and March 3, 2006, the judge in charge sought to 37 The petitioner also argues that as of the date of the facts, there was no law in force in the country defining terrorist acts. 38 The petitioner makes reference, among others, to the book Venemérides, which describes the events related to the “terrorist attacks recently perpetrated at the diplomatic legations of Colombia and Spain.” Original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 39 The petitioner notes that in November 2004 the last notice was made for appointing lay judges. Original petition received at the IACHR October 12, 2005. 40 The petitioner also notes that some of the courts that heard the case designated and vetted the lay judges, and trial dates were set, yet subsequently the judges recused themselves, which made it necessary to repeat the procedure. 41 The petitioner notes that the judges’ recusal was formally approved on May 16, 2005. 42 The petitioner notes that the prosecutor in charge of the case was Gilberto Alfredo Landaeta Gordon, who was previously the 62nd Prosecutor for the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, and subsequently Eighth Prosecutor of the Public Ministry at the National Level with full jurisdiction. 43 The petitioner makes reference to the press conference of Judge María Mercedes Prado on November 7, 2005, in which the removed judge noted that her questioning of the activity of the prosecutor in charge of the case provoked the swift intervention of the Office of the Inspector of Courts and of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice, and her subsequent removal. Video attached to the petitioner’s brief of June 13, 2006. The petitioner also notes that the case of Judge María Mercedes Prado was noted in Chapter IV of the IACHR’s 2005 Annual Report as one of the examples of the lack of guarantees vis-à-vis the removals, which are said to be reprisals for handing down decisions contrary to the Executive branch. IACHR. Annual Report 2005, Chapter IV: Venezuela, paras. 295 and 297, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2005sp/cap.4d.htm#_ftnref26. 44 The petitioner cites the 22nd Court of First Instance (for Trial) of the Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, Case 347- 05, December 2, 2004. “I was forced to make a video inculpating persons, among them Raúl Díaz, who I know and I only saw him at Plaza Altamira … yes, I was subjected to much torture.” Attached to the petitioner’s brief of June 13, 2006. 7