49 limiting therefore the ability of the Court to understand and appraise evidence based on sound judgment principles, as previously stated in paragraph 154 supra. Furthermore, the Court considers that the high number of cases pending at a tribunal does not justify per se such an excessive delay in deciding an appeal. 181. Based on the considerations above, the Court finds that the State has not successfully justified that the time it took the CPAM to rule on the appeal for annulment is consistent with the reasonable time principle. Consequently, the Court finds that the State violated Article 8.1(1) of the Convention, as regards Section 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha. 7.4. Alleged violation of the right to judicial protection to the detriment of Ana María Ruggeri Cova 182. The representative stated that the “conspiracy of public authorities […] in consistency with the desires publicly disclosed by the President of the Republic […] constitutes in itself a violation of […] Article 25 of the Convention, insofar as it renders illusory the effectiveness of any judicial remedy raised before Venezuelan courts.” Moreover, the representative stated that “Ana María Ruggeri filed with the [IGC] a defense brief, [… which] was rejected by the CORJS.” The Commission did not allege a violation of the right to judicial protection to the detriment of Mrs. Ruggeri. Furthermore, the State indicated that “as opposed to former colleagues, [Mrs. Ruggeri] did not file with the Venezuelan judicial authorities any appeal to weaken the effects of the decision rendered by the CORJS.” 183. The Court finds that the allegations of the representative are inadmissible because the “defense brief” filed by Mrs. Ruggeri is not an appeal, but a procedural act whereby allegations and evidence are submitted. Moreover, the evidence incorporated to the record does not show that Mrs. Ruggeri has filed any judicial appeal against the order for removal from office. 184. As to the allegation made by the representative regarding the “conspiracy of public authorities,” as indicated in paragraph 108 supra, it could not be proven that the Venezuelan Judiciary reports to a State authority. 185. Consequently, the Court finds that no violation of the right to judicial protection was committed to the detriment of Mrs. Ruggeri. VII ARTICLE 23 (POLITICAL RIGHTS)201 AND ARTICLE 24 (RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION)202, IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) AND 2 (DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 201 1. Article 23 of the Convention establishes: Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections, which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters; and c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.