10. On December 9 the IACHR received from the Venezuelan State communication No. 01397, requesting an extension for presentation of its observations. On December 15, the IACHR granted an extension of 30 days. 11. On December 26, the State requested another extension. On that occasion, the IACHR granted an additional 20-day extension. 12. The IACHR has not received additional information from the State to date. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 13. The petitioner argues that Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón is a Venezuelan attorney who entered the Venezuelan Judiciary in 1970, and who held various positions (notary’s clerk, associate judge of the Twelfth Court, provisional judge). On July 16, 1999, she was appointed judge of the Second Court of First Instance in Criminal Matters for the Transitional Procedural Regime of the Judicial Criminal Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, and subsequently to the Fortieth Court of First Instance in Criminal Matters, in control of that Criminal Judicial Circuit.2 Her position as a temporary judge was established by a decree of appointment of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice, “until the competitive examination takes place, as stipulated in Article 21 3 and subsequent provisions of the Judicial Career Law.” By virtue of the foregoing, the petitioner contends that the alleged victim should have remained in that post until the actual competition was held. 14. The petitioner argues that in the instant case, the right to due process and the right to defense of the alleged victim were violated when she was sent notification, by official letter No. TPE-03-0152 from the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice, that her appointment as temporary judge was annulled as a result of observations which were received by that Committee but which the alleged victim neither had knowledge of nor access to, nor the possibility to defend herself against. 15. Petitioner contends that the decision to rescind the appointment of the alleged victim is evidence of the highly political nature of this decision. This contention is supported by the fact that the alleged victim, in her capacity as a criminal judge in charge of the Fortieth Court of First Instance in Criminal Matters, heard a controversial case involving a military dissident in which a judicial inspection was requested in order to determine whether the State was complying with precautionary measures granted by the IACHR in favor of General Carlos Alfonso Martínez. Petitioner reports that the alleged victim ordered that the judicial inspection take place on January 25, 2003, and submits that this is why the judge was summarily removed from her post on February 3, 2003, by an administrative order of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice, an entity which is not competent to adopt such decisions. 16. The petitioner reports that upon receipt of the summary dismissal, the alleged victim filed an administrative motion for reversal of that decision with the Committee that removed her from her post. When the Committee failed to respond, on May 5, 2003, she filed an appeal [recurso de nulidad] with the Administrative Political Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, to annul the decision of February 3, 2003. The petitioner further indicates that the purpose of that appeal was to challenge the dismissal decision and to request payment of the salaries lost until the time she is effectively reinstated. In addition, the alleged victim claims that the 2 By an official letter dated October 20, 2002, the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice sent a communication to Mrs.Chocrón Chocrón to inform her that on October 28, 2002, the Judicial Committee had appointed her as a temporary judge “to replace Judge Norma Elisa Sandoval Moreno, as a result of the absolute vanacy created by her resignation.” Official letter TPE-02-1901 of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 3 Article 21 of the Judicial Career Law establishes as follows: Artículo 21. The Council of the Judicature shall organize and direct the competitive examinations referred to in this law, in acordance with the regulations it issues for this purpose. 2