Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice did not have the authority to dismiss her, and that it had taken on powers that belonged to the Judiciary’s Operations and Reorganization Committee, as stipulated in the Transitional Government Regime. The petitioner argues that in accordance with Venezuelan Law and until the Code of Ethics of Venezuelan Judges is adopted, the Operations and Reorganization Committee is the only entity with competence to issue administrative orders in exercise of disciplinary powers such as the removal of judges. 4 She reports that on October 19, 2004, the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared WITHOUT MERIT the appeal to annul the earlier decision [recurso de nulidad], on the grounds that the Judicial Committee had the power to appoint the alleged victim directly, without any intervening competition, and consequently the Committee also had the authority to annul her appointment, without being required to submit it to any procedures, and without any obligation to provide the factual or legal reasons underlying her removal. 17. The petitioner maintains that the way in which the alleged victim was removed violates her constitutional rights of due process, the right to defense, stability in her judicial career, and the guarantees involved in the disciplinary procedure established in the law and the National Constitution for removal or dismissal of judges. This is partly because the administrative order removing her from office provided no explanation as to the comments that were submitted to the office of the Judicial Committee and that led it to decide on her removal. Petitioner argues that provisional or temporary judges may be freely removed from their posts and replaced by other provisional or temporary judges and are constantly under threat of removal by an entirely discretionary act, thereby denying them any type of stability and the minimum guarantees of due process. 5 18. The petitioner submits that even though domestic case law in Venezuela holds that provisional and alternate judges do not have an absolute right to permanence in their posts, this does not mean that they may be sanctioned, suspended, and removed without any kind of justification, or for opportune or discretionary reasons, without due guarantees. Petitioner argues that the existence of provisional or temporary judges has a negative impact on the independence and autonomy of the judiciary. Petitioner adds that since the entry into force of the 1999 Constitution, there has been a deliberate and premeditated practice of avoiding the competitive examinations for judicial posts, and that at the present time, over 80 percent of Venezuelan judges are provisional (regular, alternate, or temporary). In addition, she maintains that further evidence of the lack of independence of the Venezuelan Judiciary is found in the repeated rotation imposed on temporary or provisional judges, allegedly whenever they issue judgments contrary to the Government’s interests. 19. As for violations of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention), the petitioner contends that the case in point involves denial of justice as a result of the lack of access by the alleged victim to the comments which the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice received and which served as the grounds for her dismissal. The petitioner argues that this act left the alleged victim in a completely undefined state of affairs. 20. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to equality, petitioner contends that she was the victim of discriminatory treatment in comparison with other judges, since she was subject to a procedure without the guarantees established by the American Convention for 4 Articles 22 and 24 of the Transitional Government Regime, published in Official Gazette No. 36,920 of March 28, 2000, establish as follows: Artículo 22.- The Council of the Judicature, its Chambers and administrative offices shall become the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary [Dirección Ejecutiva de la Magistratura] attached to the Supreme Court of Justice, in accordance with Article 267 of the constitution approved by the people of Venezuela. Until the Supreme Court of Justice organizes the Executive Directorate of the Judiciary, the powers to govern and manage, inspect and monitor the courts and the public defendcer offices, and the powers granted under current legislation to the Council of the Judicature in its Full and Administrative Chambers shall be exercised by the Operations and Reorganization Committee of the Judicial System. Article 24.- The judicial disciplinary authority to be exercised by disciplinary courts pursuant to Article 267 of the approved Constitution shall be exercised by the Operations and Reorganization Committee of the Judicial System in accordance with the present transitional regime, until such time as the National Assembly adopts legislation on disciplinary procedures and courts. 5 When Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón was dismissed, she was replaced by another temporary judge. 3