28 98 interference or pressure from other parts of judiciary or from external sources. The Commission stated that having a high percentage of provisional judges had a serious detrimental impact on citizens’ right to the adequate administration of justice and on the judges’ right to stability in their positions as a guarantee 99 of judicial independence and autonomy. 129. In December 1999, following the adoption of the new Constitution, the National 100 Constitutional Assembly decreed the “Transitional Government Regime.” The IACHR noted with concern that this regime went beyond the limits of normal, appropriate nonpermanence and included 101 guidelines of a legislative nature that went further than a transitional regime. Doubts were cast on the actions of the Judicial Emergency Commission and, later, of the Commission for the Restructuring and Functioning of the Judicial System regarding whether the guarantees of due process had been upheld in the appointment and removal of judges. In its report, the IACHR noted that on occasions, provisional 102 judges had been appointed without meeting the requirements set for those positions and that their appointments had been made without carrying out the competitive processes provided for in Article 255 of 103 the Venezuelan Constitution. 130. In its 2006 Report on Venezuela, in Chapter IV of its 2006 Annual Report, and it its 2009 report Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, the IACHR noted its concern about the situation of prosecutors in Venezuela, recalling that in addition to the possible undermining of their independence and impartiality that could arise from the constant removals and new appointments, the provisional status and resultant lack of tenure of the civil servants responsible for initiating and pursuing criminal investigations could also necessarily lead to difficulties in identifying, pursuing, and concluding specific lines of investigation as well as in meeting the procedural deadlines set for investigations. It stated that changes in investigating prosecutors have a negative impact on the pursuit of the corresponding investigations, bearing in mind, for instance, the importance of the collection and ongoing assessment of evidence. It said that this situation could therefore have negative repercussions on the rights of victims in criminal 104 proceedings involving human rights violations. 131. Regarding the temporary status of judges, the Inter-American Court has in turn stated 105 that the tenure of judges in their positions is an essential element in judicial independence. Likewise, in its report Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, the Commission said that the nonremoval of 98 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 159. 99 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 160. Information submitted to the Commission in 2003 indicated that more than 80% of Venezuelan judges were “provisional.” This situation was also noted with concern by the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 163. 100 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 166. 101 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 166. 102 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 168. 103 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Venezuela, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118 doc. 4 rev. 1, October 24, 2003, para. 169. 104 IACHR, Report on Democracy and Human Rights in Venezuela, OEA/Ser.L/V/II. doc. 54, December 30, 2009, para. 229. 105 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, Judgment of January 31, 2001, Series C No. 71, para. 75; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 138.