13 33. When determining such petition to remove, on June 3, 2003 the CPAM declared the judgment by the First Court to be null and void, and established that the latter, by not declaring the precautionary motion not to be in order, incurred in a “serious legal error of an inexcusable character.”41 34. Judicial error has been held to be inexcusable by the STJ when “it cannot be justified through reasonable legal criteria, something which turns it into a serious offense, deserving the maximum disciplinary sanction, that is, removal from office.” Furthermore, it has been pointed out that “it is an undetermined or indefinite legal notion, for which reason in every specific case the attitude of a normal judge should be weighed and on such basis, considering the characteristic features of the legal culture in the country, establish whether action by the judicial officer is inexcusable.” In such context, it has been repeatedly considered in the case law that “the judge incurs in inexcusable or unjustifiable error when, for instance, he pronounces a death sentence or a life sentence in a penitentiary, or when a public square is subjected to a seizure order, just to cite some extremely serious cases under the [Venezuelan] legal order.”42 35. When dwelling on the case, the CPAM deemed it to be “an extremely serious irregularity for the First Court […], when deciding the original petition for the precautionary amparo, to have found it in order[, …] since the natural effects of [such finding] would be for the document pending registration to be recorded, something which has clear constitutive effects that, potentially, may generate a number of situations contrary to the due legal certainty the real estate registration system must express and provide.”43 This judgment ordered for a copy thereof to be forwarded to the IGC. 44 36. On July 17, 2003, once a copy of the judgment by the CPAM was received by the IGC, the IGC “agre[ed] to institute on its own motion the pertaining preliminary investigation.”45 On September 5, 2003, after analyzing the case file, the IGC commissioned an inspector to further the inquiry and ordered notice of such act to be served upon those affected,46 which was done between September 10 and 12 of 2003.47 37. On October 7, 2003, the IGC filed an accusation with the CORJS against the five members of the First Court. It held that “the Judges […] handed down a judgment […] wherein they incurred in serious inexcusable judicial error, as the [CPAM] has established” and that such finding “impli[ed the existence] of the disciplinary offense provided in part 4 of Article 40 of the Ley de Carrera Judicial 41 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by CPAM, supra note 38, p. 1031. 42 Cf. judgment No. 465 of March 22, 2001 issued by CPAM, supra note 13. 43 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by CPAM, supra note 38, pp. 1029 and 1030. 44 Cf. judgment No. 809 of May 29, 2003 issued by CPAM, supra note 38, p. 1034. 45 Cf. order of July 17, 2003 issued by IGC (Evidence file, Book II, Appendix C.3, p. 506). 46 Cf. order of September 5, 2003 issued by the IGC (Evidence file, Book II, Appendix C.3, p. 507). 47 Cf. record of service to Judge Ana María Ruggeri Cova of September 10, 2003, record to Judge Evelyn Marrero Ortiz of September 11, 2003; record of service to Judge Perkins Rocha of September 11, 2003, record of service to Judge Luisa Estela Morales Lamuño of September record of service to Judge Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera of September 12, 2003 issued by the IGC file, Book II, Appendix C.3, pp. 508 to 517). of service Contreras 11, 2003, (Evidence