prosecutors had been appointed; hence approximately 90% of the prosecutors did not have tenure, had no stability in their post, and could be freely appointed and removed by the Prosecutor General. 60 In 2008, “638 prosecutors were appointed without a public competition being held and without being given regular status, consequently making them freely appointed and removable.” 61 In 2011, 230 prosecutors were freely selected and appointed in decisions that “were not reasoned.” 62 In 2011 and 2013, actions were taken as regards public competitions based on merits and qualifications to become a career prosecutor, which included the appointment of the first four non-provisional prosecutors. 63 One of the State’s witnesses indicated that, during 2011-2012, 88 students had graduated from the training program for career prosecutors, and it was expected that 102 more would graduate in 2012-2013. 64 74. For its part, the Commission observed that the authorities who have adopted decisions that could be interpreted as favorable to the accused have been removed from the Judicial Commission. In addition, this lack of stability has had a significant impact on both the judges and the prosecutors who have been associated with this case, because all the Public Prosecution Service officials and judicial authorities who have been involved in its have been provisional appointees. The Commission emphasized that the risks associated with the provisional nature of appointments have been revealed in at least two situations, namely: (i) “after a Chamber declared the nullity of the prohibition to leave the country, considering that it had not been justified, two of its members were removed from their posts,” and “(ii) the supervisory judge who had asked the prosecutor for the case file and who, in view of the prosecutor’s refusal, had formally notified his superior, was removed from his position by the Judicial Commission without any disciplinary proceedings or reason of any kind.” According to the Commission, this had sent a message that “had effectively dissuaded any objective and independent action on the part of the judicial authorities without tenure who would continue to hear the proceedings.” 75. The above considerations show clearly that the examination of the dispute presented in relation to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, specifically with regard to the exception contained in Article 46(2)(a), is closely connected to the problem of the provisional nature of judges and prosecutors in Venezuela, and this is undoubtedly related to Article 8(1) of the American Convention — the right to a competent, independent and impartial judge or court – taking into account that the arguments are credible and, if proved, could constitute violations of the Pact of San José. Hence, we consider that the examination of this issue cannot be separated from the analysis of the merits of the case and, therefore, the InterAmerican Court should have analyzed the preliminary objection presented by the State together with the arguments on merits submitted by the parties to the case, as it has in the past, in keeping with its consistent case law on this matter. 60 IACHR, Annual Report 2005, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124 Doc. 7, February 27, 2006, para. 294. 61 IACHR. Report. Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 54, December 30, 2009, para. 264. 62 Cf. IACHR, Annual Report 2011, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 5 corr. 1, March 7, 2011, para. 459. 63 Newsletter of the National School for Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service, “Desde la Escuela Nacional de Fiscales”, Year 1, Number 2, January – April 15, 2012; Newsletter of the National School for Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service, “Desde la Escuela Nacional de Fiscales”, Year 2, Number 5, January – April 15, 2013; Newsletter of the National School for Prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service, “Desde la Escuela Nacional de Fiscales”, Year 2, Number 6, April 15 – June 2013. See also, testimony of the State’s witness Santa Palella Stracuzzi. 64 Testimony of the State’s witness Santa Palella Stracuzzi. 18