presented and that it was obligatory to take into consideration the opinions of the Justices, recalling that, in any case, temporary judges can be replaced because this Supreme Court is empowered to appoint them until the posts are filled through the respective competitive examinations. Consequently, having studied the comments made to this court, it is decided to annul the appointment of Mercedes Chocrón to the post of temporary judge of the Criminal Court of First Instance of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Judicial Circuit decided at the session held on October 28, 2002.”103 (Underlining added) 82. On February 3, 2003, Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón was informed of the decision adopted against her by the Judicial Commission, although no reference was made to the said “comments” that had apparently been determinant for annulling her appointment, and their content was not indicated.104 On February 25, 2003, the Judiciary’s Executive Directorate of the SCJ published in a national newspaper that the appointment of the alleged victim had been annulled and that “another temporary judge [had been] appointed to fill the resulting vacancy.”105 The content of the comments was not specified at that time either. In addition, during the public hearing in this case, Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón stated that those who “removed [her] from the post never informed [her] of the content of the comments presented to the Judicial Commission.”106 83. On February 26, 2003, Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón filed an administrative appeal for reconsideration before the Judicial Commission, indicating that the decision had been issued without the existence “against [her] of any administrative inquiry or file.” She indicated that her “performance in the post had been in keeping with the proper conduct of a judge strictly respecting legality and good practice.”107 84. On June 16, 2003, the Judicial Commission declared the appeal for reconsideration filed by Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón inadmissible, considering that “the appellant’s appointment was made in the exercise of the eminently discretionary powers of the competent body, which, in principle, is called on to guarantee the continuity of the service.”108 The Judicial Commission indicated that: The appointment of the appellant, as revealed by her status as a “temporary judge,” was justified by the urgent need to fill in for the total absence of the permanent judge, and given the lack or non-existence of substitute judges appointed by the corresponding competitive examination. Thus, this appointment was the result of the application of a measure designed to ensure the continuity of the service of the administration of justice, and due to the existence of a vacuum in the usual way of meeting the need.109 85. In addition, the Commission indicated that the decision to “annul” the appointment “is not a disciplinary decision; in other words, it is not the application of a sanction resulting from an error; but rather a decision based on reasons of 103 Minutes of the meeting of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 102, folios 469 and 47. On February 5, 2003, the court that had been assigned to Mrs. Chocrón was suspended. Cf. Minutes No. 009-03 of the Fortieth Supervisory Court of First Instance of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Judicial Circuit of February 5, 2003 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 31, folio 473). 104 Official Letter No. TPE-03-0152 of February 3, 2003, from the President of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 29, folio 467). 105 Publication by the Judiciary’s Executive Directorate in the newspaper El Nacional of February 25, 2003 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 32, folio 475). 106 Testimony of Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 35. 107 Appeal for reconsideration filed by Mercedes Chocrón before the President and other members of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice on February 26, 2003 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 33, folio 477). 108 Decision of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 16, 2003 (file of attachments to the application, volume I, attachment 34, folio 481). 109 Decision of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice, supra note 108, folio 481. 27