42 Matters of the STJ, whereby it declared the “unconstitutional legislative inaction on the part of the National Assembly […] in connection with the legislative procedure instituted to enact the so-called bill for the Code of Ethics […], drafted by the Assembly in 2003, which in the end was not promulgated.”171 147. Based on the above, the Court finds that the Venezuelan Judicial Branch itself has condemned the legislative inaction in the adoption of the Code of Ethics. This inaction has consequences in the instant case, since the victims were tried by a special organ that has no defined stability and the members of which can be appointed or removed without a pre-defined procedure and at the STJ’s sole discretion. Basically, even though the misuse of power by the CORJS, acting under the direct pressure exerted on it by the Executive Branch for it to remove the victims, is not an established fact in the instant case, the Court finds that, given the discretionary removal of the members of the CORJS, due guarantees were not provided to ensure that the pressure to which the First Court was being subjected would not influence the decisions of the disciplinary organ. 148. Based on the foregoing, the Court declares that the State violated the right of Mr. Apitz, Mr. Rocha and Mrs. Ruggeri to be tried by a tribunal subject to sufficient guarantees of independence, in disregard of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 7. Efficacy of the recourses filed 149. The Court acknowledges that the recourses filed in the instant case concern the following two issues: i) the provisional suspension measure imposed by the CORJS in accordance with the disciplinary investigation for mishandling of files (supra para. 125), and ii) the sanction of removal imposed by the aforementioned disciplinary authority due to the commission of an “inexcusable judicial error” (supra para. 38). 7.1. Recourse for constitutional amparo against the order for suspension of justices Apitz and Rocha 150. As mentioned above, on October 8, 2003, the CORJS ordered a 60-day suspension on magistrates Apitz and Rocha pursuant to the investigation procedure initiated due to the undue withdrawal of a judicial record from the First Court. On October 9, 2003, the aforementioned justices brought an autonomous constitutional protection action before the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ.172 151. On June 21, 2004, the Chamber for Constitutional Matters declared “the action terminated due to inactivity in proceedings” and imposed “upon claimant a fine of five thousand bolivars.”173 The judgment established that “the case record had been inactive for more than six months, maximum time period to bring an amparo; 171 Cf. judgment No. 1048 of May 18, 2006 issued by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ, supra note 13. The STJ “Urg[ed| the [CORJS] to provide advice and cooperation to the National Assembly in order to orderly carry out the legislative work that will allow the enactment and implementation of the future judicial disciplinary code in the spirit of cooperation between the various organs of the Public Administration enshrined in Article 136 of the Constitution.” 172 Cf. autonomous constitutional protection action brought by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha on October 9, 2003 (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.4.b, p. 1177). 173 Cf. judgment No. 1186 of June 21, 2004, rendered by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ (Evidence file, Book XVII, p. 4965).