33 stability until a certain condition is met.150 117. The tenure of provisional judges is closely linked to the guarantee against external pressures, because if the provisional judges do not have a guarantee they will remain in the position for a specific period of time, they are susceptible and vulnerable to pressures from different sectors, mainly from those who have the power to decide on dismissals or promotions within the Judicial Power. 118. Now, since a Public Competitive Tender cannot be equaled to a revision of credentials nor can it be stated that the stability that accompanies a permanent position is the same as the one that accompanies a provisional position that has a dissolving condition, this Court has held that provisional appointments shall constitute an exception and not the rule, since the extension of the term of the provisional nature of judges or the fact that a majority of the judges be in that situation, generates important obstacles to their judicial independence. 151 On the other hand, in order for the Judicial Power to comply with its duty to guarantee the greatest suitability of its members, the appointments of a provisional nature shall not be extended indefinitely, thus becoming permanent appointments. This is a new reason why the provisional nature is admissible as an exception and not as a general rule and that it shall have a limited duration in time, in order for it to be compatible with the right to access public service in equal conditions. 119. In the present case, the Court points out that the transition regimen in Venezuela seeks a legitimate purpose and, in accordance with the Convention, that is, that the best judges make up the Judicial Power. However, the application in the practice of that regimen has been proven ineffective to fulfill the proposed objective. First of all because the regimen has extended over time for almost ten years. Even on March 18, 2009, the TSJ issued a decision in which it ordered the “comprehensive restructuring” of the entire Judicial Power and ordered that all judges submit to a “compelling process of institutional evaluation,” granting the Judicial Commission the power to suspend the judges that fail said evaluation. 152 This proves that the restructuring process, despite the time that has gone by, is still being implemented in different ways. 150 According to a ruling of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the extinct Supreme Court of Justice, “provisional judges are not career judges, however, they do enjoy the rights of stability, independence, and tenure guaranteed by the Constitution to the judges of the Republic; therefore, in order to be suspended or removed from that exercise the procedures established by Law shall be followed, that is, it must be done through sanctions resulting from a disciplinary proceeding or because the position was put out to a tender in order to assign its entitlement and the provisional judge who is in charge of the same –if he participates in the tender- is not awarded the position. […] The mentioned regulations [Articles 207 and 208 of the old Constitution], guarantee judges their independence and autonomy for the administration of justice, and they protect the work stability enjoyed by judges, regardless if they are career judges, provisional judges, or substitute judges; all of these constitutional rights that this Maximum Court of the Republic has guaranteed in its jurisprudence through repeated judgments and that it once again ratifies on this opportunity.” Cf. decision of the SPA of the Supreme Court of Justice issued on February 20, 1997 (dossier of annexes to the application, Volume I, annex B.6, folios 207, 208, and 211). In a similar sense, in judgment No. 365 issued on May 26, 1994, the SPA stated that “the Judiciary Council may only leave without effect the appointment of a provisional judge (or substitute) through the summons to a tender, or through the corresponding disciplinary procedure (quoting the judgment of 1217-91, case: ‘Jairo, Nixón Manzano Navarro’).” Cf. Judgment No. 365 issued by the SPA on May 26, 1994, dossier of annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim, Volume I, annex 1, folio 2805. 151 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (First Court of Administrative Disputes) v. Venezuela, supra note 58, para. 43. 152 Cf. Ruling No. 2009-0008 issued by the TSJ on March 18, 2009 (dossier of merits, Volume IV, folios 1544 to 1548).