36 “Barrio Adentro” did judges Marrero and Morales both deliver a dissenting opinion. Therefore, it is the Court’s view that there is no evidence that these two judges systematically ruled for the Government. What has indeed been demonstrated is that judges Marrero and Morales were not removed but retired due to the alleged judicial error committed by all members of the First Court, and later on were appointed to the STJ. Further below, the Court will analyze the effects of this fact in connection with the right to equal protection before the law. 121. Furthermore, the representative argued that “recently, while she was the Chief Justice of the STJ and the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of said Court, judge Luisa Estella Morales acted as an advisor to the President of Venezuela, as the executive secretary to a Presidential Council for the drafting of the constitutional reform bill” which allegedly evidences the “political bonds between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary.” In this regard, the Court notes that the evidence provided in this case only confirms that judge Morales was sworn in in that capacity on January 17, 2007.142 However, no other evidence incorporated to the case file warrants a conclusion, based on that fact alone, that the alleged political links between the Executive Branch and the Judiciary actually exist. * * * 122. In turn, the Commission and the representative argued that the circumstances surrounding the criminal investigation opened in connection with the removal of a file from the First Court, which led to a search of the Court’s premises, also evidenced the misuse of power. 123. As to this incident, on September 18, 2003, Mr. Alfredo Romero, judge Rocha’s chauffeur, was placed in detention for the alleged concealing of a public document, as he delivered a First Court file at the residence of an external rapporteur of said Court,143 on the authority of judges Apitz and Rocha.144 124. On September 23, 2003, in the context of the criminal investigation related to this offense, the First Court was the scenario of a search that extended for several hours and was conducted by long-gun-carrying officers of the General Directorate of Intelligence and Prevention Services (DISIP),145 and in the presence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 141 Cf. dissenting opinions of judges Apitz and Morales on the judgment No. 3116 of November 11, 2002, supra note 122. 142 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Si el Presidente Supremo de Justicia aplicará correctivos” [“Supreme constitutional changes too far”], published on February 1348), and newspaper article entitled “Velaré para que sure the reform does not violate the Constitution”], (Evidence file, Book V, p. 1347). se excede al cambiar la Constitución, el Tribunal Tribunal to apply sanctions if President takes 9, 2007 in El Nacional (Evidence file, Book V, p. la reforma no viole la Constitución” [“I will make published on February 9, 2007 in El Universal 143 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Aparece documento clave en caso de Corte Primera” [“Key document in First Court case found”], published on October 4, 2003 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1270). 144 Cf. judgment No. 375 of October 23, 2003, rendered by the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the STJ (Evidence file, Book II, Appendix C.1, pp. 266 to 278), and testimony of Mr. Rocha at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on January 31, 2008. 145 Cf. testimony of Mr. Apitz, supra note 137; affidavit of Mr. López Albujas, supra note 55, p. 877, and newspaper article titled “Cierre de Corte Primera bloqueó sentencia a favor de Globovisión” [“Ruling in favor of Globovisión blocked by First Court close-down”], published in El Universal on November 9, 2007 (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1317).