Commission has already ruled noting that, in “the lists of appointments and transfers made by the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice during 2012, all the judges correspond to temporary (most of them), interim and provisional postings.” In addition, with regard to the provisional nature of prosecutors in Venezuela, the Commission observed that, in October 2008, the Prosecutor General acknowledged that: Prosecutors whose appointments are provisional are at a disadvantage; their provisional status exposes them to the influence of pressure groups, which could undermine the constitutionality and legality of the justice system. Provisional status in the exercise of public office is contrary to Article 146 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which provides that positions in government are career service posts and are won by public competition.” 54 71. In its report on the case of Allan R. Brewer Carías (Venezuela) 55 in the context of its system of petitions and cases, the Commission ruled on the impact that changes in agents of justice may have on a criminal investigation, owing to their provisional status. Thus, the Inter-American Commission has indicated that numerous assignments of different provisional prosecutors to the same case have negative effects on the advance of the investigations, if the importance, for example, of the ongoing gathering and evaluation of the body of evidence is taken into account. The Commission has considered that a situation such as the one indicated may have negative consequences on the rights of the victims in the context of criminal proceedings related to human rights violations. 72. When assessing the situation of the provisional nature of judges in Venezuela, in the case of Reverón Trujillo, 56 the Court indicated that, at the time of the events of that case (from 2002 to 2004), “approximately 80% of the country’s judges were provisional.” In addition, “[i]n 2005 and 2006, a program was implemented under which those provisional judges appointed on a discretionary basis were able to achieve tenure. The number of provisional judges had been reduced to approximately 44% by the end of 2008.” 57 In August 2013, according to a witness presented by the State, the situation of the Judiciary was as follows: 1095 provisional judges, 50 special substitute judges, 183 temporary judges, 657 tenured judges, and 12 vacant posts for judge.” 58 In 2013, only 33% of judges were permanent and 67% were appointed or removed by the Judicial Commission, because they did not enjoy tenure. 59 73. Furthermore, in relation to the provisional nature of the prosecutors attached to the Public Prosecution Service, up until 2005, 307 provisional, interim and substitute 54 IACHR. Guarantees for the Independence of justice operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/5/II. Doc. 44. December 5, 2013. 55 IACHR. Merits Report No. 171/11 Case 12,724 Allan R. Brewer Carías (Venezuela), November 3, 2011, para. 130. See also, IACHR. Report Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54, December 30, 2009, para. 229. 56 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. 57 Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, Para. 106. 58 Testimonial statement of Luis Fernando Damiani Bustillos, witness for the State. In 2013, according to a publication on the TSJ website, more than 71 provisional judges, 408 temporary judges and 356 interim judges were appointed in the country’s different judicial circumscriptions. See also the expert opinion of Antonio Canova González of August 29, 2013. 59 Testimony of Octavio José Sisco Ricciardi during the public hearing held in this case. See also, annexes 24 and 25 to the State’s answering brief which refer to a total of 1,949 judges, 34% of whom have tenure, and 65% do not. 17