44 168. The State indicated that “the alleged victim, in her statement offered in the public hearing of the present case, tried to ignore the payment of the indemnification for her years of service, arguing an alleged non-conformity with the amount paid in a timely manner,” but that “[t]here is no element whatsoever that serves as grounds for the alleged non-conformity of the alleged victim with the amount of the indemnification paid for her years of service.” 169. In the case file before the Court there is an “Indemnification for years of service” of February 22, 2006, which has not been objected nor has its authenticity been questioned; the same indicated that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo was paid off for a work period from July 21, 1999 to February 26, 2002 with an amount of Bs. 28,777,936.74 (twenty-eight million seven hundred and seventy seven thousand nine hundred and thirty-six with 74/100 bolivars). That amount includes the interests for delayed payment covering the period from February 27, 2002 to February 15, 2005. In this settlement it can be verified that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo signed under the following wording: With the signing of the present form, I spread upon the record my conformity with the amounts and concepts received from the Executive Office of the Magistracy by virtue of the settlement of the work relationship I maintained with this body, reason for which there is nothing to demand, either for the concepts paid on this opportunity or for any other concept derived from the work relationship.177 170. Likewise, as stated by the witness Valero Rodríguez, there is no evidence that the victim made any complaint or stated her non-conformity with the amount received. 171. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo was in fact paid off by the State for the services offered between the years 1999 and 2002. 172. In what refers to the income perceived by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo for her shares in different Venezuelan and foreign corporations, the State forwarded a “sworn statement of assets”, which in effect proves the victim’s property of several shares in different corporations.178 173. Now, the Court considers that the settlement for the indemnification for the years of service refers only, to the years of service as a provisional judge and does not include the salaries and social benefits not received as of the moment of her dismissal. On the other hand, Mrs. Reverón Trujillo’s condition as shareholder refers to the income she received privately and not as a public employee, and therefore irrelevant to this case. In this sense, through the payment of said settlement and the patrimonial means available to Mrs. Reverón, the wages and work benefits not received are not satisfied. 174. Consequently, the Tribunal, taking into account the evidence on the salary and the indemnification for the years served perceived by the victim,179 and considering 177 Cf. settlement of indemnification for years of service issued by the Executive Office of the Magistracy on February 22, 2006 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 55, folio 2941). 178 Cf. sworn statement of assets offered by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo on September 9, 1999 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 56, folios 2953 through 2963). 179 Cf. evidence of the withholding of income taxes issued by the Administrative Office of the Judiciary Council and the Executive Office of the Magistracy between the years 1999 and 2002 (annexes to the Final Written Arguments of the Representatives, Volume III, folios 3530, 3535, 3537, and 3542) and documents regarding the salary, indemnification for years of service, and interests issued by the Executive Office of the Magistracy between the years 1999 and 2002 and interests on delayed payments from the year 2002 through 2005, issued by the Executive Office of the Magistracy (annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 55, folios 2943 through 2949).