15. Based on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American system, 7 the petitioners argued that their dismissal as judges of the First Court was a violation of their right to guarantees—that they would remain in public office in perpetuity—under Article 23(c) of the American Convention. The petitioners argued that their right of access to public office under equal conditions was violated because their judicial decisions were not compromised by the ideology or policies of the current government. The independence of the judiciary was is questionable, evidence of this being that, according to the petitioners, judges are rotated when they issue judgments contrary to the interests of the government, in violation of the principle of the “natural judge” or juez natural. Finally, the petitioners claim that the interference of the executive branch in the judiciary undermines the very essence of a democratic society and violates Article 29(c) and (d) of the American Convention. 16. The petitioners claim that they were subject to discriminatory treatment in comparison with other judges, as they were subjected to a procedure devoid of the guarantees established in the American Convention for proper defense. They also claim that preferential treatment was given to two judges of the First Court, who cast dissenting votes in the cases concerning the government. 17. The petitioners claimed that they had no access to a simple and swift or effective remedies that would have protected them against the acts they allege violated their human rights. 18. Regarding the required exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners stated that they filed three available internal appeals, none of which were decided within the time limits established by Venezuelan law. The petitioners indicate that, against the administrative act dismissing them as magistrates of the First Chamber, they filed an appeal for constitutional amparo 8 on October 9, 2003 with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ). They noted that, under Venezuelan legislation, once an appeal foramparo is admitted and the parties are notified, there must be a public hearing within no more than 96 hours and the judge must render judgment within the following five calendar days. In this case, the petitioners noted that, up until the date of filing the complaint with the IACHR, the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ had not even decided on the admissibility of the appeal, thereby denying simple and swift remedy, as envisaged in Venezuelan law and the American Convention. The Commission took note of the fact that the appeal for amparo was decided on June 21, 2004. The Constitutional Court terminated the case on grounds that the proceedings had been abandoned, basing its decision on the fact that the complainant had last acted in the proceedings on December 9, 2003. 19. In addition, on November 13, 2003, the petitioners filed a hierarchical appeal against the administrative acts of the Commission on restructuring the judicial system, which ordered their dismissal in the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. They stated that, despite the fact that Article 91 of the Organic law of Administrative Procedure established that such appeals must be decided within no more than 90 calendar days, 9 at the time of filing the petition with the Commission no ruling had been handed down. 20. Finally, the petitioners reported that they had filed an appeal for annulment on November 27, 2003, together with a request for precautionary measures of constitutionalamparo against the administrative act by the Restructuring Commission with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. They pointed out that up until the date of dispatch of the report to the IACHR, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had taken no decision on admissibility or ruled on the request for precautionary measures. The petitioners explained that neither the appeal for annulment nor the precautionary measures have deadlines established by law. 7 IACHR. Report No. 58/98 Case of the Constitutional Court of Peru, December 9, 1998. 8 Article 49 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes: The Courts shall protect all inhabitants of the Republic in the enjoyment and exercise of the rights and guarantees established by the Constitution, in accordance with the law. Proceedings shall be short and summary and the trial judge shall have the power to immediately restore the legal situation that was infringed. 9 Article 91 of the Organic Law of Administrative Procedure supra 8. 4