I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On November 25, 2009, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed an application against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “Venezuela”) with regard to case No. 12,556, Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón, originating from a petition received by the Commission on May 15, 2005, and registered as No. 549-05. On March 15, 2006, the Commission issued Report on Admissibility No. 38/06.4 On March 17, 2009, the Commission adopted Report on Merits No. 9/09 and forwarded it to the State, granting it two months to report on the measures taken to comply with the Commission’s recommendations.5 After finding that Venezuela had not adopted the recommendations included in the said report, the Commission decided to submit this case to the jurisdiction of the Court. The Commission appointed Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Cantón, Executive Secretary, as Delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Specialist of the Executive Secretariat, as legal advisors. 2. The application argues an alleged “arbitrary removal of the [alleged] victim from her post as Judge of First Instance for Criminal Matters of the Metropolitan Caracas Judicial Circuit, [allegedly] without affording her any minimum guarantees of due process and without adequate justification, without giving her the possibility to be heard and to exercise her right of defense, and without allowing her any effective judicial remedy against [the alleged] violations, all as a consequence of the [alleged] absence of guarantees in the transition process of the Judiciary.” 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare that the Venezuelan State had violated the rights established in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón (hereinafter Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón). In addition, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt measures of reparation, and to reimburse costs and expenses. 4. On March 8, 2010, the representatives of the alleged victim, Carlos M. Ayala Corao, Rafael J. Chavero Gazdik and Marianella Villegas Salazar (hereinafter “the representatives”), filed their brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence (hereinafter, “pleadings and motions brief”) before the Court under the terms of Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition to the violations argued by the Commission, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State was responsible for violating the right recognized in Article 23(1)(c) (Right to Participate in Government) of the American Convention, and defined their request for reparations, and costs and expenses. 4 In Report on Admissibility No. 38/06, the Commission declared the case admissible, insofar as it referred to alleged violations of the “right to a fair trial (Article 8); the right to participate in government (Article 23); the right to equal protection (Article 24), and the right to judicial protection (Article 25) of the American Convention, in accordance with the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.” Report on Admissibility No. 38/06 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, volume I, folio 50). 5 In Report on Merits No. 9/09, the Commission concluded that the State had failed to comply with the obligations imposed by the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective judicial remedy embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. In addition, the Commission considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to establish violations of the right to equal protection of the law and the right to have access, under general conditions of equality, to public service, as indicated in Articles 24 and 23(1)(c) of the American Convention Cf. Report on Merits No. 9/09 (file of appendices to the application, attachment 1, volume I, folio 37). 4