not happen. Suspension of the act would have been sought so that Mrs. Reverón could participate with all the special benefits derived from her status as a judge. The petitioner states that the State’s attitude is contrary when it alludes to a competitive examination that has never been called much less held. B. The State 17. In its brief dated November 10, 2005, the State indicated that pursuant to Article 17 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Court of Justice, the National School of the Magistracy is the training center for judges and other civil servants in the judicial branch. The State emphasized that the orders of the Political-Administrative Chamber, when ruling on the appeal filed by Mrs. Reverón, consisted of the evaluation of the judge during the entire period she was in the judiciary and that her entry into the judicial branch would be ordered after she passed the competitive examination to be opened for that purpose. 18. The State indicates that Mrs. Reverón did not ask to be included in the Special Program for Regularization of Tenure (PET) carried out by the National Magistracy School during the months of August and September 2005. However, the State indicates that once Mrs. Reverón completes her formal evaluation application at that school, she will be included as a participant in the Program for Regularization to be carried out during November and will be called to participate in the Public Competitive Examination provided she meets the requirements established in the Provisions for Evaluation and Competitive Examinations for Entry and Promotion in the Judicial Career now in effect. 19. Further, the State added that entry to the judicial career is based on a system of public competitive examinations, as provided by Article 255 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 11 Consequently, the State indicates that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo “had to indicate her desire to participate in the respective competitive examination, given the appellant’s status as a judge at the time she filed her challenge.” On this basis, the State asks that the petition be ruled inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Jurisdiction i. The Commission’s jurisdiction ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 20. The petitioner is authorized by Article 44 of the Convention to file complaints with the IACHR. The petition indicates as the alleged victim Mrs. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. Therefore, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. With respect to the State, the State ratified the American Convention on August 9, 1977. 21. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that would have taken place within the territory of a State Party to that treaty. 22. The IACHR has jurisdiction ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected under the American Convention were already in effect for the State on the date on which the events alleged in the petition would have occurred. 11 Political Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Article 255. Entry to the judicial career and promotion of judges shall be through public competitive examinations that ensure the suitability and excellence of the participants who shall be selected by the judicial circuit courts, in the manner and under the conditions established by law. The appointment and swearing in of judges is the responsibility of the Supreme Court of Justice. The law shall guarantee citizen participation in the procedure for selecting and appointing judges. Judges may only be removed or suspended from their positions through procedures expressly provided for in the law. The law shall promote the professionalization of judges and universities shall collaborate in this goal, by organizing the corresponding judicial specialization in university law studies. Judges are personally liable, under the terms established by law, for unjustified error, delay or omissions, for substantial failure to adhere to procedural norms, for denial, partiality, and for crimes of corruption and prevarication they commit in the performance of their duties. 5