2 of Procedure”), issues the present Judgment. I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND OBJECT OF THE CONTROVERSY 1. On November 9, 2007 the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) presented, pursuant with Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, an application against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”), based on which the present case was started. The initial petition was filed before the Commission of April 8, 2005. On July 25, 2006 the Commission approved Report No. 60/06, through which it declared the petition admissible. Subsequently, on July 27, 2007, it approved the Report on merits No. 62/07, in the terms of Article 50 of the Convention, which included certain recommendations for the State. This report was notified to the State on August 9, 2007. After considering that Venezuela had not adopted its recommendations, the Commission decided to submit the present case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Messrs. Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary as delegates and the attorneys Elizabeth Abi-Meshad, Deputy Executive Secretary, Débora Benchoa, Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez, and Silvia Serrano, specialists of the Executive Secretariat as legal advisors. 2. The application refers to the alleged arbitrary dismissal of María Cristina Reverón Trujillo (hereinafter “Mrs. Reverón Trujillo” or “the alleged victim”) from the judicial position occupied by her, which occurred on February 6, 2002. On October 13, 2004 the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the SPA”) ordered the nullity of the act of dismissal considering that it was not adjusted to the law, but it did not order the reinstatement of the alleged victim to her position, or the payment of the salaries and social benefits she did not perceive. Therefore, the Commission argued that the appeal for annulment did not provide Mrs. Reverón Trujillo with an effective judicial remedy capable of repairing, in a comprehensive manner, the violation of her rights. 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the right enshrined in Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the same, in detriment of the alleged victim. Likewise, it requested that it order certain reparation measures. 4. On January 31, 2008 Messrs. Rafael J. Chavero Gazdik and Carlos M. Ayala Corao, representatives of the alleged victim (hereinafter “the representatives”), presented their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of pleadings and motions”). Besides that indicated by the Commission, the representatives held, inter alia, that the dismissal of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo and the inability to reinstate her to her position would also constitute a violation to the principle of autonomy and independence of the judge. Likewise, they argued that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo suffered an unequal treatment regarding her right to enter and remain in her public duties, by having limited the “regularization of the entitlement” processes of the provisional judges in the effective exercise of their positions and by having denied her reinstatement. The representatives concluded that, besides the Articles invoked by the Commission, the State would be responsible for the violation approved by the Tribunal in its XLIX Regular Session, held from November 16 to 25, 2000, and partially reformed by the Court in its LXI Regular Session, held from November 20 to December 4, 2003.