not allow a prima facie conclusion to be reached regarding the impact of the provisional status on the guarantee of judicial independence in order to establish that an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies is admissible based Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention. This is because not even one first instance decision exists in which it is possible to assess the real impact that the provisional status of the judges could have had on the proceedings, an aspect that represents an important difference with previous cases that the Court has heard on this issue in Venezuela. Indeed, in those case, at least a first instance decision had been issued and, in some of them, decisions on the appeals. 138 Furthermore, the victims in those cases had been judges who were removed, contrary to this case in which the presumed victim is the accused. 112. In proceedings held under the rules of the adversarial system, such as this case, during the trial stage or during appeal proceedings, any defects or violations that the domestic judges consider pertinent can be corrected. It should be emphasized that, in the second request for annulment filed by Mr. Brewer’s defense counsel, it was argued that the problems associated with the way in which the appointment of some provisional judges who intervened in the proceedings was annulled allegedly affected his guarantee of being tried by an ordinary judge, because “their autonomy, independence and impartiality” had not been guaranteed.” 139 The Court considers that, if the domestic judges had intervened to decide this argument, it would have been possible to determine more clearly whether or not the provisional status had such an impact that the exception established in Article 46(2)(b) would have applied and, if so, to analyze the merits of the case. 113. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the exception established in Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention is not applicable. 138 In the case of Apitz Barbera et al., the Court analyzed the disciplinary proceeding that led to the removal of three of the five judges who, at the time, composed the second most important court of Venezuela. The victims presented an application for amparo against the decision ordering the suspension of two of the judges, an appeal to a higher court against the decision ordering the removal, and an appeal for annulment and preventive measure of protection against the sanction of removal from office. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182. The case of Reverón Trujillo related to a provisional judge whose removal from office was annulled, but without this declaration involving her reinstatement in her functions owing to her provisional status. The Commission for the Restructuring and Operation of the Judicial System dismissed her considering that she had committed disciplinary faults related to the abuse of authority and lack of diligence. Ms. Reverón Trujillo filed an appeal for annulment of this ruling. The Political and Administrative Chamber of that court declared the nullity of the sanction of dismissal. However, it did not order that she be reinstated in her post, or payment of the salaries she had failed to perceive. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. Lastly, in the case of Chocrón Chocrón, the Court declared that the State was internationally responsible for having annulled Ms. Chocrón Chocrón’s appointment as a temporary judge, without guaranteeing her a minimum stability in the exercise of this function, a reasoned decision on her removal, and her rights of defense and to an effective remedy. Ms. Chocrón Chocrón had been appointed “on a temporary basis” by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Three months after her appointment, the Judicial Committee met and decided to annul her appointment based on certain observations that had been made to the judges, members of that Committee. Consequently, an administrative appeal for review was filed before the Judicial Committee and also a contentious administrative appeal for a declaration of nullity based on unconstitutionality and illegality, together with an application for amparo before the Political and Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Both bodies declared the appeals “inadmissible.” Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227. 139 Brief of the defense submitted to the Twenty-fifth Court on November 8, 2005 (file of annexes to the answering brief, annex 1, exhibit 15, folio 14783). 37