161. Lastly, the representatives indicated that the promulgation of the Ethics Code for Venezuelan Judges “does not guarantee the independence of the Judiciary” because “the judges that comprise the disciplinary tribunals would be elected by entities whose members would be elected by the Citizen’s Power and the so-called “Community Councils”; […] “more than 20 reasons for the removal of a judge have been stipulated […]”; “the Legislature is authorized unilaterally to elect judges until the above-mentioned bodies are constituted […],” and “the Judicial Commission retains its powers until the establishment of the first” disciplinary tribunals, and this has not occurred “to date.” 162. Taking into account that the Court has declared violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, both in relation to the principle of judicial independence (supra paras. 123 and 130), the Court considers that, as a guarantee of non-repetition, the State must, within a reasonable time, adapt the domestic legislation, decisions and regulations issued as part of the judicial restructuring process in Venezuela to the relevant international standards and to the American Convention. This entails amending the norms and practices that allow provisional and temporary judges to be removed freely, as well as full respect for judicial guarantees and other rights for this type of judge. 163. Regarding the Ethics Code for Venezuelan Judges (supra para. 66), the Court observes that expert witness Canova stated that “neither the creation of the Judicial Electoral Colleges nor the appointment of disciplinary judges […] has been carried out to date.”192 Therefore, although the said Ethics Code had been promulgated at the date of this judgment, the Court orders that it be implemented as soon as possible in order to guarantee the impartiality, independence and stability of the disciplinary bodies whose creation is pending. In addition, the Court reiterates what it indicated in the Apitz Barbera et al. case, to the effect that “this [Code] must ensure both the impartiality of the disciplinary organ, permitting, inter alia, that its members may be recused, and its independence, providing for an appropriate process for the appointment of its members and ensuring their permanence in office.”193 164. Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the Supreme Court of Justice, the Judicial Commission, and the other disciplinary bodies must ensure the protection of the rights of the provisional and temporary judges. In this regard, in keeping with its case law, this Court recalls that it is aware that domestic authorities are subject to the rule of law and, therefore, obliged to apply the legal provisions in force.194 Nevertheless, when a State is a party to an international treaty such as the American Convention, all its organs, including its judges and other bodies related to the administration of justice, are also subject to it. This obliges them to ensure that the effects of the provisions of the Convention are not diminished by the application of norms contrary to its object and purpose. The judges and other organs related to the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to monitor ex-officio that domestic law is in keeping with the American Convention in the context of their respective competences and procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and organs related to the administration of justice must take into account not only the 192 Affidavit made by expert witness Antonio Canova González, supra note 85, folio 621. 193 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 121, para. 253. 194 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 124; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 28, para. 202, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 225. 49