45 160. The Court notes that it was the Venezuelan lawmaker who established that the term set forth in the law is the one that must be adhered to when a matter such as that analyzed herein is involved and, therefore, domestic authorities are expected to comply with those terms. In the instant case, Venezuela has offered no explanation whatsoever specifying the reasons why the STJ needed more than nine months to solve the matter. 161. Based on the considerations above, the Court finds that the State violated the right to be heard within a reasonable term, as set forth in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in accordance with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha. 7.3. Appeal for annulment and precautionary measure of amparo against the order for removal from office 162. On November 27, 2003, Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha filed with the CPAM an administrative appeal for annulment together with a precautionary measure for amparo against an order for removal from office issued by the CORJS (supra para. 38).181 On September 29, 2004, the appellants requested that “the appeal and precautionary measure be admitted” and “expressed their interest in furthering proceedings until final completion.”182 On September 20, 2005, and October 10, 2006, the appellants restated their petition for admissibility of the appeal.183 163. On April 18, 2007, the CPAM found the constitutional amparo action inadmissible and declared “admissible the administrative appeal for annulment for the sole purpose of processing and verification by the Substantiating Court regarding the lapse of the application.”184 To the date of the present Judgment, the CPAM has not rendered any decision on the merits of the case. 164. The Commission alleged that it took “more than three years” for the Courts to reject the appeal for constitutional amparo, and “more than four years after its filing, no judgment on the merits was rendered.” The Commission added that for the victims these circumstances purport “a defenselessness and denial of justice situation, which persists to this date.” Furthermore, the Commission held that “the fact that more than three years have elapsed without a substantive solution shows that it takes an unreasonable amount of time to obtain judicial protection, especially when juxtaposed with the fact that the victims were prosecuted and sanctioned in a period of less than a month.” 165. The representative stood by the comments of the Commission and added that “given the low complexity of the matters brought before the courts in the instant case, evidently the appeal has not been decided within a reasonable term.” Moreover, it indicated that “the Court had 3 days to grant the appeal for annulment; however, as said appeal had been filed together with a precautionary measure of constitutional amparo, the Court had to solve the latter ‘forthwith.’” 181 Cf. annulment appeal filed together with precautionary measure of amparo by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha, supra note 53. 182 Cf. petition filed by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha on September 29, 2004, with the CPAM (Evidence file, Book VI, Annex B, p. 1373). 183 Cf. petitions filed by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha on September 20, 2005, and on October 10, 2006, with the CPAM (Evidence file, Book VI, Annex B, pp. 1374 and 1375). 184 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007, rendered by the ad-hoc CPAM (Evidence file, Book XVII, p. 4983).