21. From the preceding arguments, the petitioners claim that the exemption established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention should apply in this case. B. Position of the State 22. The State maintains that the process of dismissal of the petitioners was carried out in accordance with Article 30 of the Decree on the Public Authorities Transitional Regime. It points out that the investigation was not automatically initiated by the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring but by the Inspectorate General of Courts acting on a communication from the Supreme Court of Justice. It states that the petitioners were duly notified of the purpose of the investigation since its initial stages on September 10, 2003, so that they could exercise their right to a defense. The State notes that on October 7, 2003, the magistrates were summoned to the Inspectorate to give them an opportunity to present their pleas, defenses, and evidence against the accusations. At that time, they had 5 days to present their arguments. The State pointed out that the summons indicated that once that stipulated time period had lapsed, the case would be referred to the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring. It noted that on October 14, 2003, magistrates Apitz, Rocha and Ruggeri submitted their written defense, objecting to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring to hear the case. In view of the fact that the petitioners had all the guarantees at their disposal, the Venezuelan State requests that the IACHR declare the case inadmissible. 23. In its account of the facts, the State relates that on October 7, 2003, the Inspectorate General of Courts accused the magistrates of the First Court of having committed a “serious inexcusable error,” as stated in the judgment of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 3, 2003 and ordered the dismissal of the magistrates pursuant to Article 40(4) of the Law on Careers in the Judiciary. The State notes that on that date, the Inspectorate issued summonses for the magistrates to appear within 5 days to present their pleas, defenses, and evidence in the matter of their dismissal, with the warning that once that deadline had lapsed, the case would be transferred to the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring. It states that, on October 8 of that year, the magistrates had been duly served and had submitted their defense briefs between October 14 and 15, 2003. On October 16, 2003, the Inspectorate General of Courts submitted the case to the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring with the accusations and the disciplinary procedures to be followed. 24. The State maintains that the arguments advanced by the petitioners regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring were groundless because, until the National Assembly passes a law that determines disciplinary processes and courts, such matters shall be governed by Article 267 of the National Constitution and the rules established by the National Assembly through the Decree on the Public Authorities Transitional Regime, which grants the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Restructuring the power to “settle any disciplinary matter of unlawful conduct [ílícito disciplinario] on the part of judges and other judiciary officials.” 10 25. Regarding the petitioner’s claims of discriminatory action on the part of the State in reprisal for their political-ideological positions, the State presented some statistics on the numbers of complaints submitted by users to the Inspectorate General of Courts against the petitioners. Based on those statistics, the State argues that there were serious doubts about the First Court with respect to negligence and improper functioning. The State also questions the veracity of the petitioner’s allegations of political persecution, pointing out that the Inspectorate General of Courts had initiated disciplinary proceedings against all First Court magistrates, acting on a decision of the Supreme Court of Justice. It claims that the disciplinary proceedings against the judges of the First Court were carried out in strict 10 See Article 24 of the Public Authorities Transitional Regime established by the National Constituent Assembly in Official Gazette No. 36.920 of March 28, 2000. 5