45. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged fact that may have been the reason for the annulment of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón’s appointment does not form part of the factual framework of the application in this case. 46. In relation to the representatives’ argument regarding the existence of a pattern of specific cases of the removal of judges for political motives, the Court recalls that, in order to analyze a pattern of this type, the Commission must have developed specific arguments based on which the respective case is placed in this context,37 and it failed to do so in this matter. Additionally, having established that the alleged reason for the removal of the alleged victim does not constitute a fact in the application, the subsequent analysis of the constitution of an alleged context of the removal of judges for political motives is not appropriate in this case. 47. Based on the above, the Court concludes that it is not appropriate to rule on facts alleged by the representatives that were not submitted as such in the Commission’s application. VII RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS 48. Regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8,38 25,39 1(1)40 and 241 of the American Convention, the Commission indicated that “the facts of this case provide another example of the problems resulting from the provisional status of judges in the process of transition of the Judiciary in Venezuela.” In particular, the Commission considered that “the transitional regulations applied to the [alleged] victim (which centered on the authority granted to the Judicial Commission […]) do not meet international standards on judicial independence and guarantees of due process.” It also indicated that “this case reflects the harmful effects that the lack of guarantees in the transition process of the Judiciary in Venezuela has had in relation to the exercise of due process of law and the access to effective remedies.” 37 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 13, para. 59. 38 Article 8(1) of the American Convention (Fair Trial) establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 39 Article 25(1) of the American Convention (Right to Judicial Protection) establishes that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 40 Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Obligation to Respect Rights) stipulates that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 41 Article 2 of the American Convention (Domestic Legal Effects) establishes that: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 15