4 which it presented arguments, inter alia, regarding the scope of Article 25 of the American Convention and reparations, especially, namely the concept of injured party. The Spanish version of that brief was received on April 6, 2009. 10. On February 3, 2009 the President asked the parties to present, along with their briefs of final arguments, and in the quality of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case support documents with regard to different subjects.7 11. On February 20 and 21, 2009, the State and the representatives forwarded, respectively, their briefs of final arguments. Both the State and the representatives forwarded the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the President (supra para. 10). The brief of final arguments of the Commission was filed ten days after the expiration of the term granted, which, in the President’s opinion, resulted excessive and she therefore decided to rejected for being time-barred. 12. On March 17, 2009 the State requested that the brief of final arguments of the representatives also be rejected, since it was received with a one-day delay. On March 25, 2009 the representatives asked the Court that “in application of the limits of temporality and reasonability criteria and in compliance of the terms and the superior interest of the obtainment of justice […], it consider as filed for the subsequent analysis [their] briefs of final arguments.” Lyons, Tatiana Olarte Fernandez, Tara Van Ho, all students of the Masters Program in International Human Rights Law, and Clara Sandoval, Professor, Co-Director of the Masters Program on International Human Rights Law and member of the Human Rights Center. 7 Those subjects were: a) the investigation carried out by the expert Canova on the alleged systematic denial of appeals filed against the State before the Supreme Court of Justice and the relevance of this for the present case; b) information that leads to establish why Mrs. Reverón Trujillo apparently did not make any request regarding the tenders the State argues it has carried out within the Special Program for the Regularization of the Entitlement; c) judicial decisions and other documentary evidence on the alleged arbitrary removal of provisional judges; d) evidence and arguments regarding evidence referring to psychological and physical disorders that are and have allegedly been suffered by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo, clearly indicating the assessment specialized personnel has made regarding its causes, characteristics, possibilities of recovery, and diagnosis; e) internal regulations or documentary evidence regarding the possibilities provisional judges removed from participating in the Special Program for the Regularization of the Entitlement; f) legislation or jurisprudence that leads to the establishment of differences and/or similarities between the Special Regularization Program and the Public Competitive Tender; g) documentary evidence on the quality of provisional or titular judge that currently occupies the position that was occupied by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo; h) information that leads to verify if the publications made in the newspapers with national circulation in the years 2005 and 2006, clearly indicate that the judges removed from their position can also participate in the tenders for judges within the Special Program for the Regularization of the Entitlement; i) information on the thirteen cases of removed judges that would have participated in the Special Program for the Regularization of the Entitlement; j) information on public competitive tenders carried out after the issuing of the Constitution of 1999; k) regulations, jurisprudence, or any other type of evidence that leads to determine if the fact that provisional judges are subject to “free removal”, implies that prior to the removal from their position they shall be submitted to an administrative, disciplinary, or any other regulated procedure and if besides this procedure, any other type of grounds are required to remove judges from their position, or if to the contrary, the “free removal” implies that the provisional judges can be removed from their position by mere discretion of any state authority without a prior process; l) information that leads to determine the legal regulations that support the decision of the Political-Administrative Chamber, in the sense of establishing that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo should have stated her will to participate in the corresponding “tender”; m) regulations, jurisprudence, or any other type of evidence that allows this Court to verify how Venezuela complies or not with Principle 12 of the Basic Principles regarding the independence of the judiciary in what refers exclusively to provisional or temporary judges; n) information that allows the Court to understand how a “public tender” can be carried out if the summons to the titling programs is supposedly not an open invitation to all people but instead a specific list of people, who were all supposedly active provisional judges; o) information that leads to the determination of when and how the restructuring process of the Judicial Power will conclude, and p) official information on the number and percentage of provisional judges there have been in the last 10 years and on the alleged impact this had or has had regarding the independence of the Judicial Power and in reference to the present case.