28 2006126 and reasserted by the Constitutional Chamber,127 which stated: The provisional judges […] occupy judicial positions, but they do not enjoy the condition of career judges, since they have not entered through a public tender in which they would have been evaluated through different tests (written, practical, oral). Their appointment is made by the Judicial Commission, by a delegation made up by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Justice, based on the need to fill judicial positions while the mentioned restructuring and reorganization process of the Judicial Power culminates. […] Without doubt, there is a distinction between career judges and provisional judges: The first acquire the title after the approval of the tender; on the contrary, provisional judges are appointed discretionally, prior analysis of their credentials. Career judges enjoy stability and may only be punished or dismissed from their position if it is proven, through an oral and public hearing with guarantees of defense […] that they have committed any of disciplinary offenses established in the Organic Law of the Council of the Judiciary and the Law on the Judicial Career, which is not so for provisional judges, which may be separated from the position in the same way in which they were appointed: discretionally.128 103. The representatives argued that the number of provisional judges reached “really alarming levels, since at some point it reached amounts of more than 80% of the judges.” As grounds for this, the representatives referred to an annex to the affidavit of Mr. Hevia Araujo, Deputy Director of the National School of the Magistracy 129 and witness proposed by the State. Said annex corresponds to the 126 In its judgment No. 1798 of October 19, 2004, the SPA established that “all the disciplinary sanctions contemplated in the Law on Judicial Career, shall necessarily be preceded by the corresponding administrative proceeding, whether an official of career or an official of free appointment and dismissal; while when seeking the dismissal of a judge whose appointment has been made in a provisional manner, the administrative decision that determines their separation from the position, does not have to be subject to any proceeding, since precisely the guarantee of the judge’s stability, and therefore, the right to be submitted to the corresponding proceeding, are reached with the competitive examination that is currently enshrined in the Constitutional Text as a demand sine qua non to access the position of Judge with a titular nature or a career judge” (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 24, folio 1101), This same analysis was reiterated in its judgment No. 1225 of May 17, 2006, making emphasis o the fact that a judge’s stability is achieved with the competitive tender and that this stability is not possessed by the provisional judges (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 26, folio 1146). 127 In two judgments issued in 2005, No. 5111 and No. 5116, the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ stated that “[i]n effect, as stated by the Political-Administrative Chamber provisional judges that enter the Judicial Power to fill a vacancy do not enjoy the stability constitutionally enshrined, since these are officials whose entrance was not verified through a tender. Therefore, they may be removed from their position without the need of an administrative proceeding prior to their dismissal” (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annexes 28 and 29, folios 1210 and 1231). Additionally, in its judgment No. 1413 of July 10, 2007, the Constitutional Chamber stated that “[that] Constitutional Chamber has held, with regard to the positions exercised with a temporary nature, that these do not confer the officials – whether judicial or administrative- the quality of permanent or titular personnel and, therefore, they do not enjoy the rights inherent to the career such as, for example, stability in the position, reason for which they can be suspended or removed from the position according to the attributions that fall upon the corresponding judicial or administrative authority.” (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 27, folios 1170 and 1171). 128 Cf. judgment No. 2414 of the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ issued on December 20, 2007 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 23, folios 1075 and 1076). See also, statement offered by the witness Cabrera Romero in the hearing celebrated before the Inter-American Court on January 23, 2009. 129 The Organic Law of the TSJ (supra para. 94) stated, inter alia, that the National School of the Magistracy “is the center for the formation of judges and the other officials of the Judicial Power, pursuant with the policies issued by the Full Court of the [TSJ]” and that “[t]he policies, organization, and operation of the National School of the Magistracy, as well as its academic orientations, will correspond to the [TSJ]. Cf. Article 17 of the Organic Law of the TSJ, supra note 106, folio 588. Among the attributions of that School are “[p]lanning, coordinating, and executing the induction, formation, professionalization, actions, and constant training of the judges” and other employees or people aspiring to the Judiciary. Cf. Article 4(1) of the Organic Bylaws of the National School of the Magistracy, issued by the TSJ in March 2005 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume I, annex 20, folios 997 and 998).