37 125. On October 6, 2003, judges Apitz and Rocha were summoned by the Public Prosecutor’s Office146 and, on October 7, 2003, acting “on its own motion” the IGC started a disciplinary investigation into the events of September 18, 2003.147 On October 8, 2003, “at the request of the [IGC]”, the CORJS applied a “precautionary measure of suspension” for a 60-day term to Messrs. Apitz and Rocha “in order to conduct the necessary investigation […] into the serious events of […] September 18 [of that year.]”148 126. While Mr. Alfredo Romero was held in detention (supra para. 123), his lawyer stated to the press that “Romero can be nothing but a political prisoner, since it is more than evident that he has been in detention for twelve days now without due cause, and that political pressure is being exerted on those judges of the First Court who dared rule in a manner that did not sit well with the Government.”149 127. On October 23, 2003, the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the STJ ruled that the detention of Mr. Rocha’s driver was unfounded, as the removal of the file did not meet the requirements of an offense and was a “common practice” in the Venezuelan Judiciary that was not the subject of an “express prohibition.” The Chamber “invalidate[d] any investigation which may be conducted into the same events.”150 128. On October 26, 2003, following the ruling of the Criminal Cassation Chamber referred to in the preceding paragraph, the President of Venezuela spoke of the First Court in the following terms la Cortecita [the little court] […] A chamber, a court, that is, where most of the judges had sold out to the interests of the coup-plotting opposition, and one night it turns out that they obtained, and they captured, a police team captured the chauffeur of one of those judges carrying a file. In other words, they removed a file on corruption from the archive there, and the judge's chauffeur was carrying the file to be delivered to the attorneys of the defendant, who is a leader of one of these opposition parties that in essence are nothing other than Acción Democrática and COPEI.151 129. In her statement, former judge Ruggeri expressed that “such discrediting remarks sought to pave the way for [the] removal [of the members of the First Court] or to scare [them] into adhering to the political project of the Government.” 130. The State considered that the statements of “high-ranking Government officials […] do not ope legis amount to misuse of power.” It added that if such statements “are put into context, it is evident that they were aimed at protecting a public interest that arose as a result of an unmistakable need in a democratic society.” 146 Cf. summons of October 6, 2003 to Mr. Apitz, and summons of October 6, 2003 to Mr. Rocha, issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.3.b, pp. 1048 and 1049). 147 Cf. account of complaints against Mr. Rocha, supra note 103, pp. 396, 397 and 403, and account of complaints against Mrs. Ruggeri, supra note 103, pp. 379, 380 and 382. 148 Cf. resolution No. 117 of October 8, 2003, issued by the CORJS, applying a precautionary measure of suspension to Messrs. Apitz and Rocha (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.4.a, pp. 1172 and 1173). 149 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Chofer de la Corte Primera es ‘carnada de una trampa política’” [“First Court driver used as ‘bait in political trap’”], published on September 30, 2003 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1266). 150 Cf. judgment No. 375 of October 23, 2003, rendered by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the STJ, supra note 144, pp. 274 to 276. 151 Cf. statement made by the President of the Republic Hugo Chávez Frías on October 26, 2003 on Government Online, Aló Presidente No. 169, supra note 13.