93. […] In the present case, the petitioners allege that factors such as the provisional status of the judges and prosecutors involved in the case have caused them to be subject to removal without a proceeding, a situation that affects the guarantees of impartiality and independence. 94. Specifically, the petitioners allege that at the request of the Sixth Prosecutor, the Twenty-fifth Supervisory Judge issued the order barring Allan Brewer Carías from leaving the country. That order was appealed before the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal. On January 31, 2005, the Appeals Chamber revoked the order barring Brewer Carías from leaving the country. On February 3, 2005, the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice suspended the judges of the Court of Appeal who had voted in favor of the nullity of the decision appealed, as well as Temporary Judge Josefina Gómez Sosa, for not having indicated sufficient grounds to support the order prohibiting departure from the country. Judge Gómez Sosa was replaced by Supervisory Judge Manuel Bognanno, also temporary. The petitioners allege that Judge Bognanno was suspended from office on June 29, 2005, after notifying the Superior Prosecutor on June 27, 2005, of alleged irregularities in the investigation conducted by the Sixth Prosecutor. In other words, the petitioners allege that the judges who supervise guarantees and who ruled in favor of the defense or sought to rectify violations of due process allegedly committed during the investigation phase were replaced. 95. The Commission observes that, in response to the allegations made by the petitioners, the State has not indicated the most effective remedies to question the assignment or removal of judges. In fact, it should be pointed out that the remedies usually available to the defense, such as recusal, are not suitable to question the provisional appointments of judges assigned to the proceedings or their removal because of their performance. The Commission finds that the removal of several provisional judges in the present case, after rendering decisions regarding the situation of the alleged victim, may have affected his access to domestic remedies and, therefore, this aspect of the claim should be exempt from the requirement being analyzed (bold added). 108. In this regard, the Court considers that, although the determinations made by the Commission in its Admissibility Report are determinations prima facie, it is an error for the Commission to have considered that the decisions adopted with regard to some of the temporary and provisional judges who intervened in the proceedings were directly related to Mr. Brewer. 109. Indeed, the Court underscores that Mr. Brewer Carías has been charged in proceedings in which other individuals who supposedly took part in the events of April 2002 have been accused. The suspension of the supervisory judge and of two members of the Chamber who declared the nullity of the prohibition to leave the country of some of the accused in the proceedings was related to an alleged irregularity in decisions concerning some of the accused, but not Mr. Brewer (supra para. 50), who, at that time, had not been accused. 137 110. Moreover, although the Admissibility Report mentioned that the appointment of the supervisory judge Manuel Bognanno was annulled as a result of the alleged irregularities committed by the Sixth Prosecutor, the Court notes that the dispute that occurred on June 27, 2005, between the Sixth Prosecutor and Judge Bognanno was related to a request by the defense counsel of another of those accused in the proceedings; in other words, an accused who was not Mr. Brewer (supra para. 56). Thus, even prima facie, it is not possible to establish a direct causal link between the decision to annul the appointment of Judge Bognanno on June 29, 2005 (supra para. 56), and an action carried out by a judge “with regard to the situation of the presumed victim,” as mentioned in the Admissibility Report. 111. Also, in relation to the discussions as to whether this exception was admissible, the Court reiterates that the actual procedural stage of this case (supra paras. 96 to 98) does 137 In this regard, the Commission, in its Merits Report stated that “Admissibility Report No. 97/09 wrongly indicated that the ban on leaving the country included Allan Brewer Carías. In the merits procedural stage it was determined that this ban was not issued against Allan Brewer Carías but against other individuals investigated for their alleged participation in those facts.” Merits Report No. 171/11, Case 12,724, Allan R. Brewer Carías, Venezuela, November 3, 2011 (Merits Report, tome I, folio 28). 36