REPORT Nº 60/06 1 PETITION 406-05 ADMISSIBILITY MARÍA CRISTINA REVERÓN TRUJILLO BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA July 20, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. On April 13, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition filed by Rafael Chavero Gazdik (hereinafter “the petitioner”), alleging violation by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “Venezuela”, “the State” or “the Venezuelan State”) of Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 23, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) to the detriment of María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. 2. The petitioner alleges that María Cristina Reverón was acting as a provisional judge while awaiting the competitive exams that would allow her to have tenure in the judiciary. While serving in that status, she was removed by the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System, for having committed an alleged abuse of authority, inexcusable judicial error and negligence in the management of the process. However, after an appeal that the earlier decision be vacated due to procedural error, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the decision of the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System was partially void because no judicial error had been proven nor had there been any abuse of authority. Nonetheless, the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber did not order the reinstatement of the judge nor that she be paid salary and amounts due. It only voided the decision and ordered that reference to the removal be eliminated from the files of the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System. For all these reasons, the petitioner believes that there is a failure to recognize the right to the independence and impartiality of judges, given that provisional judges end up being officials who can be freely appointed and removed without strengthened guarantees like those of tenured judges. In addition, the petitioner claims that in other similar cases the Supreme Court has ruled differently, supporting the reinstatement of provisional judges. 3. The State argues that the alleged victim needed to indicate her desire to participate in the respective competitive examination, given her status as a judge at the time she filed her challenge. 4. After examining the positions of the parties in the light of the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to rule the case admissible under Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 23(1)(c), 24 and 25 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission decided to inform the parties, to publish this Admissibility Report and to include it in its Annual Report. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. The original petition was received by the Commission on April 13, 2005 and recorded as No. 406-05 of 2005. On July 5, 2005, the Commission forwarded the petition to the government of Venezuela, pursuant to Article 30.3 of its Rules of Procedure. On September 8, 2005, a request for an extension was received from the State, which was granted. On December 15, 2005 the State submitted its observations on the case. On December 20, 2005, the State’s observations were forwarded for submission of observations by the petitioner. On February 3, 2006, the petitioner sent more information on the petition, copy of which was sent to the State. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 1 As provided in Article 17(2) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Freddy Gutiérrez, a Venezuelan national, did not participate in the discussion or decision in this case. 1

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3