29 Report on the Administration of the Judicial Career 2005-2008 and establishes, inter alia, the following: “instructions were received from the Full Chamber of that Tribunal to solve – within the realm of its jurisdiction- the problematic existing on that date, with regard to a provisional nature of 80% of the judges […] at a national level.”130 In the affidavit of Mr. Hevia Araujo several graphs were presented in this sense. One of them refers to the regularization of the entitlement and it shows that between the years 2000 and 2005 there were approximately 200 titular judges and between the years 2005 and 2008 this number grew to a little over 700.131 In another graph, regarding the provisional situation of judges in Venezuela between the years 2000 and 2008, indicates that in the year there was around 1,500 provisional judges at a national level and that in the year 2008 this number decreased to around 700 provisional judges. 132 It is important to point out that, according to evidence provided by the State, in the year 2008 there was a total of 1,840 judges at a national level.133 104. The reports of the Inter-American Commission on the human rights situation in Venezuela coincides with the number mentioned by the representatives with regard to the number of provisional judges in a specific time in Venezuela. According to the annual report of the Commission of the year 2002, there would be between 60 and 90% of provisional judges, 134 situation that persisted in 2003. 135 In 2004 the Commission indicated that “the situation had not varied substantially” since 2003 and that according to information provided by the General Office of Human Resources of the Executive Office of the Magistracy, 81.70% of the judges were in a provisional condition.136 In the same report the Commission indicated that the State had stated that “the fact that more than 80% of the judges in Venezuela are provisional judges, which is, without doubt, one of the most serious problems present in the Judicial Power.”137 The Commission in its report of 2005 reiterated this same information.138 In its report of 2006, the Commission highlighted that in said year more than 80% of the justice officials had been made titular judges, and especially in the criminal field the State had informed there was an 80% of titular judges.139 130 Cf. annex 1 of the statement of the witness Hevia Araujo, supra note 21, folio 1087. 131 Cf. annex 1 of the statement of the witness Hevia Araujo, supra note 21, folio 1105. 132 Cf. annex 1 of the statement of the witness Hevia Araujo, supra note 21, folio 1106. 133 Cf. statement of the witness Hevia Araujo, supra note 21, folio 1104. On the other hand, we can point out that the expert Canova González stated that currently between 15 and 45% of the judges in Venezuela are not permanent. It is the expert’s opinion that the lack of transparency and contradictory official data makes the clarity of the information difficult. Cf. statement offered by the expert Canova González, supra note 95. In this sense, the State observed that this expert’s data had “little scientific nature” and that the distance between 15 and 45% did not have “any logic whatsoever”. Additionally, the State made emphasis on the fact that Mr. Canova González admitted it did not have exact information regarding the number of provisional judges. However, the numbers presented by the witness Hevia Araujo, proposed by the State, indicated that at the end of the year 2008 the percentage of provisional judges would reach 44% (Cf. statement of the witness Hevia Araujo, supra note 21, folio 1104), which coincides with the maximum percentage presented by the expert Canova González. 134 Cf. Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2002, supra note 26, para. 30. 135 Cf. Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2003, supra note 26, para. 57. 136 Cf. Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2004, supra note 26, para. 186. 137 Cf. Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2004, supra note 26, para. 188. 138 Cf. Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2005, supra note 26, para. 292. 139 Cf. Annual report of the Inter-American Commission of the year 2006, supra note 26, para. 160. Likewise, it is important to point out that the report from the organization Human Rights Watch for 2004,