19 [of the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of August 5, 2008] it is observed that, irrespective of whether that […] Court has ordered the Venezuelan State to approve and promulgate the Code of Judicial Ethics, the Constitutional Chamber […], by decision 1,048 of 2006, ordered the National Assembly to approve and subsequently promulgate this Code of Ethics, so that, accordingly, we consider […] that it would be ineffective and could waste procedural energy for that […] Court, to establish any repercussions from this operative paragraph, since the National Assembly enacted the Ethics Code,32 whether as the result of the judgment in the international order or the judgment in the domestic order […]. 15. The State concluded that: On this occasion, the Venezuelan State, through its representative, wishes to inform [the Court] that for us, it is impossible to comply with the Judgment as regards operative paragraphs 16 and 17, because we already have a judgment which is self-explanatory […]; however, with regard to [those] two paragraphs, the State has already established its position in relation to the judgment of the Plenary Chamber. (Bold type added) 16. During the private hearing, the representative indicated that: Almost all the operative paragraphs of the Judgment are pending compliance, including the one referred to by the State concerning the adoption of the Judicial Ethics Code. The Court has not established that the Judicial Ethics Code should be issued with a specific time frame. What the Court ordered was the adoption of a Judicial Ethics Code based on the parameters indicated by the Court as regards the independence and impartiality of the judges. An Ethics Code that guarantees the tenure of judges and guarantees their independence and impartiality […]. The Deputy Agent of the State has referred to a judgment of the Constitutional Chamber in which […] he eluded a key word in that judgment; […] it declares that this Judgment is unenforceable; it is declares that this Judgment will not be complied with; it declares that this Judgment will not be observed and is not observed […]. [T]he Venezuelan press report[ed] that the judges of the First Administrative Court have been appointed; these positions of judge were vacant, which indicates that the operative paragraph of the Judgment could have perfectly well been complied with. In other words, it would have been possible to appoint the judges who were victims in this case to these positions. It would have been possible to reinstate them and this was not done, but rather other judges were appointed, […] and this reflects the State’s unwillingness, disinclination to comply with the Judgment. Moreover, the appointment of these lawyers to the First Court occurred a long time before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered the judgment mentioned by the State. [… A] judgment delivered by the Constitutional Chamber declaring this Judgment of the InterAmerican Court unenforceable evidently causes us concern, […] because it reveals the intention of a fundamental organ of the Venezuelan State to disobey a Judgment of the Inter-American Court. I do not believe that it is possible to come here and declare that […] the Judgment of the Inter-American Court has international validity and that the State respects and observes this; but, meanwhile, that the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is valid in the domestic sphere and must also be respected and observed. […] 17. Following the private hearing, the representative indicated that “Article 65 of the Convention is an auxiliary means available to the Court to require compliance with its decisions and does not entail the Court renouncing its authority to monitor compliance with the Judgment.” In this regard, the representative asked that, “even if […] this means that the Court renounces its competence to monitor compliance with its own judgments, in the terms of Article 65 of the American Convention […], the General Assembly of the [OAS] should be informed of this situation, as a case of frank non-compliance” by the State. In addition, the representative requested that, in application of Article 65 of the Convention, this Court “recommend to the General Assembly […] specific measures to obtain 32 During the private hearing the State provided a copy of the gazette in which the “Código de Ética del Juez Venezolano y la Jueza Venezolana” [Venezuelan Code of Judicial Ethics] was published (Official Gazette No. 39,236 of August 6, 2009). 9