27 * * 99. From all the information previously stated it could be concluded that the restructuring of the Judicial Power in Venezuela, which can be considered started with the approval of the summons of the Constituent Assembly in April 1999, has lasted more than 10 years. Additionally, at the time at which the present judgment is issued there is no information in the case file before the Court regarding procedures addressed to the adoption of the mentioned Code of Ethics or the laws that would determine the disciplinary courts (supra paras. 86, 87, and 88), despite the fact that the Constitution established that the legislation regarding the Judicial System would be approved within the first year after the installation of the National Assembly (supra para. 87). On the other hand, the disciplinary powers have been exercised by the CFRSJ since the year 2000 (supra paras. 91 and 92). Finally, the regulations approved by the Full Court of the TSJ established a program through which nontitular judges could be entitled without participating in the public tenders established for the general population, which consisted of the PFI and the knowledge exam (supra paras. 96 through 98). 2.3 The provisional judges 100. According to the State, the provisional judges are non-titular judges, which “have been appointed in an exceptional manner, through an act emanating from the Judicial Emergency Commission, of the Judicial Commission of the [TSJ], or the Full Court of the [TSJ], without carrying out the Public Competitive Tender established in Article 255 of the Constitution.” Therefore, according to the State, these provisional judges “are not subject to the judicial career and are therefore excluded of the benefits of stability and continuance that derive from it.” 101. From the evidence provided it can be concluded that in the domestic jurisdiction there is a jurisprudential line both of the SPA and the Constitutional Chamber of the TSJ, according to the Decree of Reorganization of the Judicial Power (supra para. 84), that states that the provisional judges are of free appointment and removal. In effect, the SPA in the year 2000, upon solving an administrative appeal for annulment, held that “the right to stability […] is reserved to the judges that enter the judicial career through the means enshrined in the constitution and legally developed, this is, through public competitive tenders [and that] the mentioned right refers to the position occupied by the official, of which he may not be dismissed or suspended for any reason or through any procedure different to those established, that is, prior compliance of the disciplinary regimen applicable to it.”124 Additionally, the SPA stated that: those who occupy a position for which they have not competed, lack the right under analysis and may therefore be removed from the position in question in the same conditions in which it was obtained, that is, without the obligation for the competent Administration to justify that separation in the stipulations that make up the applicable disciplinary regimen –we insist- only to the career judges, this is, to those that occupy a position obtained in a previous competitive tender.125 102. This jurisprudence of the SPA has been reiterated in judgments of 2004 and 124 Cf. judgment No. 02221 of the SPA issued on November 28, 2000 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume II, annex 25, folio 1126). 125 Cf. judgment No. 02221 of the SPA, supra note 124, folio 1127.