44 maximum term of forty-eight (48) hours as from appropriate notice, report on the alleged actual or potential violation that led to the petition for constitutional amparo. Failure to submit such report will be construed as admission of the facts raised. […] Section 25.- The constitutional amparo proceeding will not include any type of settlement between the parties; nevertheless, the injured party may, at any stage and condition of proceedings, abandon the action brought, unless the nature of the right involved is essentially of public order or may impair uses and custom. Malicious withdrawal from or abandonment of proceedings by the injured party will be sanctioned by the sitting Judge or Higher Authority, as the case may be, with a fine of two thousand bolivars (Bs. 2,000.oo) to five thousand bolivars (Bs. 5,000.oo). Section 26.- The court hearing the amparo will determine, within ninety-six (96) hours following submission of the Report by the person allegedly responsible or expiration of the applicable term, the date for the parties or their legal representatives to orally or publicly present their respective allegations. After that, the Court will have a non-extendable term of twenty-four (24) hours to decide on the petition for constitutional amparo. 156. The Court finds that, though the victims could resort to an amparo action, which is the most suitable remedy within the Venezuelan domestic jurisdiction for the purposes of the instant case, and that such remedy was timely presented and admissible, it did not prove fast enough to address claims regarding alleged human rights violations. Undoubtedly, it cannot be held that 256 days is a short time period to render a decision on a recourse for constitutional amparo, as set forth in Article 25(1) of the Convention. Therefore, the Court considers that the State violated the right enshrined in the aforementioned provision, as regards Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha. 7.2. Hierarchical recourse filed against the order for removal 157. On November 13, 2003, Mr. Apitz and Mr. Rocha filed a hierarchical recourse before the Plenary Chamber of the STJ requesting the latter “[t]o declare that the Justices of the First Court” were only “subject to the disciplinary authority exercised by the Plenary Chamber of the [STJ].”178 On September 8, 2004, the Court “overruled the petition filed.”179 158. The representative alleged that the hierarchical appeal “should have been decided within […] 90 days;” however, such decision took ten months. The Commission “refrained from rendering an opinion, due to […] insufficiency of charges and of evidence.” The State did not file allegations on this matter. 159. It took 9 months and 26 days for the STJ to rule on the hierarchical recourse, even though Section 91 of the Organic Law on Administrative Procedures sets forth that “the hierarchical appeal shall be decided within ninety (90) days following submission.”180 178 Cf. hierarchical appeal filed by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha on November 13, 2003, supra note 51, p. 1112. 179 note 52. 180 Cf. judgment No. 23 of September 8, 2004, delivered by the Plenary Chamber of the STJ, supra Cf. Article 91 of the Ley Orgánica de Procedimientos Administrativos [Organic Law on Administrative Procedures], supra note 75, p. 146.