35 the Barrio Adentro plan.”136 Lastly, the Mayor of Sucre said: “I am not going to comply with the court judgment even if they throw me in jail.”137 118. Regarding such statements, the State expressed that “the media that discussed or reported the news did not […] allow [these] officials a chance to comment on their statements in order to clarify their scope.” It also contended that the documentary evidence on such statements “is, about ninety percent (90%), limited to news that were reported in a not so representative section of the Venezuelan print media, presented in a time sequence that deviates from any logical pattern of legal coherence.” It is the Court’s view that the circumstances alleged by the State do not question the existence of such statements or complain that they have been distorted or are false. The statements clearly show that judges Apitz, Rocha and Ruggeri were professionally discredited with claims that they should not be a part of the Judiciary and urgings to disobey the decision adopted upon a majority vote by the First Court. * * * 119. In combination with the above, as a contextual fact that would explain the reasons for the misuse of power, the Commission and the representative argued that two distinct political trends were at play within the First Court, namely the one embraced by the three victims in the instant case, which was against government interests, and that of judges Morales and Marrero, who apparently “systematically” delivered dissenting opinions on those decisions that went against government interests,” and “were subsequently appointed to the [STJ].” In turn, the State denies that such two judges were “‘rewarded’ with their ‘promotion' to the [STJ].” 120. The Court notes that the only evidence submitted in connection with the above consists of two media articles published in 2003 that described the two judges as pro-government.138 However, the judgments of the First Court that were incorporated to the case file (supra para. 112) show that most of such decisions were reached unanimously.139 Judge Morales delivered a dissenting opinion on four of those judgments,140 as did judge Apitz on one of these.141 Only in the case of 136 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Los cuestionamientos de José Vicente y Freddy Bernal,” [“The challenges posed by José Vicente and Freddy Bernal”] published in El Universal, supra note 15. 137 Cf. newspaper articles entitled “Rangel Avalos desacatará decisión de tribunales” [“Rangel Avalos to disobey court decision”] and “Rangel Avalos reitera desacato a decisión de Corte” [“Rangel Avalos confirms disobedience of Court order”], published in El Universal, supra note 15. At the public hearing before the Court, Mr. Apitz stated as follows: “Representative Nicolás Maduro, who is currently the Minister of Foreign Affairs, [stated] to the media that our pictures should have been displayed in public locations so that people could identify us on the streets and give us what we deserved.” However, no evidence supporting such allegations was incorporated to the case file before this Court. Cf. declaration rendered before the Inter American Court at the public hearing celebrated on January 31, 2008. 138 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Magistrados esperan frutos del pacto entre el MVR, AD y el MAS” [“Magistrates expect results of MVR-AD-MAS pact”], published in El Universal, supra note 15, and newspaper article entitled “Comisión de Reestructuración Judicial destituyó a 4 magistrados” [“Commission for Restructuring the Judicial System removes 4 magistrates”], published on October 31, 2003 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1246). 139 Cf. First Court judgments No. 3034 of October 31, supra note 121; No. 3043 of November 6, 2002, supra note 121; No. 3278 of November 25, 2002, supra note 123; No. 01 of January 7, 2003, supra note 124; No. 552 of February 26, 2003, supra note 126, and No. 1852 of June 12, 2003, supra note 127. 140 Cf. dissenting opinions of judge Morales on the judgments No. 2326 of August 20, 2002, supra note 120; No. 3116 of November 11, 2002, supra note 122; No. 75 of January 22, 2003, supra note 127, and No. 155 of January 24, 2003, supra note 125.