29 97. The Court will now assess whether the evidence contained in the file allows the case of the victims’ removal to be framed into a pattern of cases that would demonstrate that the Venezuelan Judiciary lacks independence. In this regard, the Court has held that it is not possible to ignore the special seriousness of finding that a State Party to the Convention has carried out or has tolerated a practice of human rights violations in its territory, and that this “requires the Court to apply a standard of proof that considers the seriousness of the charge and that notwithstanding what has already been said, is capable of establishing the truth of the allegations in a convincing manner.”104 98. A first event related by the representative is the speech delivered by a Justice of the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ at the inauguration of the 2001 annual court term. According to the representative, in that speech “[he] started to insist that the interpretation of the Constitution should serve the prevailing political project.” 99. Said speech stated, inter alia, as follows: The Highest Court can be proud and satisfied that it has provided a legal solution to the problems that arose […] in line with the axiological project of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and with the rule of Law and Justice that enshrines such project. […] In this process, not only has the law not operated as an obstacle to social change but, on the contrary, it has turned out to be an instrument at the service of the uninterrupted juridification of change itself […] tribute has been paid to law and justice, and we have recovered our faith in legislation as an adequate means to bring about political change. In spite of the diatribe of those who oppose such change, the Highest Court has acted as expected of it, even though not everyone had the exact same expectation. From this moment onwards, constitutional doctrine will have to be developed in a progressive direction. […] Perhaps this is the start of a new legal-political climate in which to live the Venezuela we all want.105 100. The Court does not consider that such speech insists that constitutional interpretation should be at the service of the prevailing political project, as claimed by the representative. The speech deals with the legal resolution of political conflicts and, since it makes reference to an axiological constitutional project, it does not necessarily end with an expression of support to any given political position.106 101. The element of context brought up by the representative is the alleged “removal or ‘retirement’ of those judges of the [STJ] who had at some point strayed away from the official position.” In this regard, the representative makes reference to the retirement of three justices of the Electoral Chamber who signed a judgment on the presidential recall referendum.107 The only evidence provided on this issue is 104 Cf. Case of Godinez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 135, and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 14, para. 45. 105 Cf. speech of Justice Delgado Ocando, supra note 13. 106 The representative also made reference to the court term's inauguration speech delivered by Judge Francisco Carrasquero on January 28, 2008, in which he apparently stated that “the paradigm of a given and alive ideology tints our actions;” however, this speech has not been added to the case file. Unlike the speech of Justice Delgado Ocando, which the Court has taken into consideration because the full text thereof was available on the web page of the STJ, the speech delivered by judge Carrasquero is not available on that page. Since the full speech is unavailable, the Court lacks the necessary elements to assess its value. 107 The representative made reference to the removal "of justices Alberto Martín Urdaneta (the President of the Electoral Chamber of the STJ), Rafael Hernández, and Orlando Gravina, both serving at the Electoral Chamber as well (who signed the judgment of March 15, 2004, whereby the Chamber stayed the enforcement of a resolution issued by the National Electoral Council that had blocked the presidential recall referendum), and who were pensioned off."