compliance” with the Judgment. 18. During the private hearing, the Inter-American Commission observed that: The information provided to the […] Court reflects the total failure to comply with three of the four measures established in the Judgment delivered by this Court and, regarding these three measures, the Commission [considers that] the provisions of domestic law cannot be used to obstruct compliance with international obligations. […] The Commission would only like to mention that, as regards the reinstatement [of the judges who were removed,] that, in the Judgment, the Court left open the possibility that, should well-founded reasons exist not to comply with the reinstatement, a payment should be made to the victims. And, regarding the other payments for non-pecuniary damage and costs, and in relation to the publications, the Commission wishes to recall that, in other cases, the Venezuelan State has made publications, has made payments, so that it is evident that there is no domestic constraint to comply with those aspects […]. Regarding the Ethics Code, the Commission wishes to underscore that the Court was not informed of the Code by formal channels. The Commission found out about its adoption informally and, therefore, reserves the possibility of presenting additional observations when the State presents it during the proceeding of compliance with the Judgment and […] it asks the State, when presenting it, to explain how the Ethics Code complies with the principles of independence and impartiality that were established in the Court’s Judgment. 4. The obligation to comply with the decisions of the Court 19. First, the Court observes that, in operative paragraph 19 of the Judgment, the State was ordered “to adopt, within one year of notification of this Judgment the necessary measures for the approval of the Code of Judicial Ethics.”33 Furthermore, that this should be done in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 253 of this Judgment, which indicated that the Ethics Code should “ensure both the impartiality of the disciplinary organ, permitting, inter alia, that its members can be challenged, and its independence, providing for an appropriate procedure for appointing its members and ensuring their tenure.”34 20. In the instant case, the State has not presented information on compliance with this measure. However, in the judgment handed down in the case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, this Court indicated, as a proven fact,35 that the “Código de Ética del Juez Venezolano y la Jueza Venezolana” [the Judicial Ethics Code] was published on August 6, 2009,36 and subsequently amended on August 23, 2010,37 and “establishes the ethical principles that guide the conduct of the judges of the Republic, as well as their disciplinary regime, in order to ensure their independence and suitability.”38 On that occasion, the Court 33 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, operative paragraph 19. 34 Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 253. 35 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 66. 36 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 66 and Código de Ética del Juez Venezolano y la Jueza Venezolana, published in Official Gazette No. 39,236 of August 6, 2009 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume III, attachment 10, folios 1295 to 1315). 37 Cf. Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 66 and reform of the Código de Ética del Juez Venezolano y la Jueza Venezolana. 38 Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, para. 66. In this regard, article 39 of the Ethics Code establishes that “[t]he organs that, in the exercise of jurisdiction, have disciplinary jurisdiction over the judges of the Republic are the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal and the Judicial Disciplinary Court, which shall hear and apply in first and second instance, respectively, the disciplinary proceedings for violation of the principles and obligations contained in [the] Code.” The Code also establishes the decisions that may constitute disciplinary offenses and their 10