47 184. The judgment of October 13, 2004 of the SPA ordered, inter alia, that “any information mentioning that the previously named citizen was punished shall be eliminated from [Mrs. Reverón Trujillo’s] judicial file.” (supra para. 55) 185. The representatives state that a reference to the dismissal of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo can still be found in her personal file. 186. The State, based on the statement of the witness Valero Rodríguez,185 indicated that the Executive Office of the Magistracy fully complied with the judgment of the SPA and eliminated from the victim’s personal file all reference to her dismissal. The State clarified that the representatives were referring to a “settlement form”, which is not found in the victim’s personal file, but in the “settlement files of the General Human Resources Office of the Executive Office of the Magistracy.” 187. The Tribunal observes that on the back of the “settlement form” the State indicated was not in the victim’s personal file there is a certification from the General Coordinator of the Executive Office of the Magistracy stating that the copy of the mentioned document “is an accurate and exact copy of the original found in the Personal File of the citizen María Cristina Reverón Trujillo.”186 188. Thus, the Court orders the State to immediately remove from Mrs. Reverón Trujillo’s personal file the mentioned “settlement form”. 5. Adjustment of the domestic legislation 189. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to “approve the Code of Ethics of Venezuelan Judges referred to in Article 267 of the Constitution, which shall establish the ethical and moral principles of Venezuelan judges, along with the causes for warnings, suspension, and dismissal of judicial employees.” 190. In this sense, the Tribunal in the case of Apitz Barbera et al. v. Venezuela ordered the State the following: […]in 2006 the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ declared the ‘unconstitutional legislative inaction on the part of the National Assembly […] in connection with the legislative procedure instituted to enact the so-called bill for the Code of Ethics and Discipline of Venezuelan Judges, drafted by the Assembly in 2003, which in the end was not promulgated.’ Taking into account that the Venezuelan Judicial Power itself has considered it imperative that the Code of Ethics be enacted and that the transitional regime has extended over nine years, and in view of the declared violations of Article 2 of the Convention, this Court determines that the State must adopt such measures as may be required to pass the Code of Ethics within the term of one year as from notice of this Judgment. These regulations shall ensure both the impartiality of the disciplinary organ, permitting, inter alia, that its members be challenged, and its independence, providing for an appropriate selection and appointment process and 187 secured tenure of office. 191. Since on the date on which the present Judgment is issued no official information on the adoption of said Ethics Code has been forwarded to the case file, the Tribunal decides to reiterate in the present case the order given in the mentioned case. 185 Cf. statement offered by the witness Valero Rodríguez at the public hearing held before the InterAmerican Court on January 23, 2009. 186 Cf. certification of the General Coordinator of the Executive Office of the Magistracy issued on March 27, 2008 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 55, folio 2942, highlight not from the original). 187 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra note 58, para. 253.