2 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE 1. On November 29, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, an application against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”), which originated this case. The first application was filed before the Commission on April 6, 2004. On March 8, 2005, the Commission delivered Report No. 24/05, whereby it declared the case admissible. Later, on July 20, 2006, the Commission issued the Report on the Merits No. 64/06, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, containing recommendations for the State. Said report was notified to the State on August 14, 2006. Having concluded that Venezuela had failed to adopt its recommendations, the Commission decided to submit the instant case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Ariel E. Dulitzky, Elizabeth AbiMershed, Débora Benchoam and Manuela Cuvi Rodríguez, as legal advisers. 2. The application is related to the removal from office of former judges of the Corte Primera de lo Contenciso Administrativo [First Court of Administrative Disputes] (hereinafter “the First Court”) Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera on October 30, 2003, on the grounds that they had committed an inexcusable judicial error when they granted an amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] against an administrative act that had denied a request for protocolization of a land sale. The Commission asserted that the removal based on this error “is contrary to the principle of judicial independence and undermines the right of judges to decide freely in accordance with the law” and that they were removed “on the grounds that they had committed an alleged inexcusable judicial error when what existed was a reasonable and reasoned difference of possible legal interpretations concerning a particular procedural feature. This was a serious violation of their right to due process because of the lack of justification of the decision to remove them and their lack of access to any simple, swift, and effective recourse for obtaining a determination on the disciplinary measure to which they had been subjected.” Moreover, the Commission stated that the First Court had adopted decisions “that had generated adverse reactions among senior officials of the executive branch” and that “the indicia as a whole” supported the inference that the body that ordered the removal was not independent and impartial and that such removal resulted from a “misuse of power” originating in the “cause-and-effect relationship between the statements of the President of the Republic and senior government officials concerning the decisions that went against government interests and the disciplinary investigation that was initiated and that culminated in the victims' removal.” 3. In its application the Commission requested the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (right to a fair trial) and Article 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention in conjunction with the duties established in Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and Article 2 (obligation to adjust domestic legislation to human rights standards) thereof, to the detriment of the victims. Furthermore, it requested the Court to order certain measures of reparation. 4. On February 19, 2007, Mr. Héctor Faúndez Ledesma, representative of the alleged victims (hereinafter “the representative”), submitted a brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “the brief containing pleadings and motions”) under Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. Apart from the issues