vi) vii) viii) ix) rights and those that relate to the common good, it is clear that the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, by failing to restrict itself to ordering compensation for the supposed violation of rights, used the judgment analyzed to interfere unacceptably in the regulation and administration of the judicial sector which corresponds exclusively to the Supreme Court of Justice”;26 “The Inter-American Court equated absolutely the rights of the tenured judges and the provisional judges, which is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the law”;27 “The contested judgment attempts to disregard the definitive nature of administrative and judicial decisions that have acquired the status of res judicata by ordering the reinstatement of the judges who were removed”;28 “[I]t is not a question of interpreting the meaning and scope of the judgment of the Inter-American Court […], or of disregarding the treaty validly signed by the Republic that substantiates it, or of eluding the commitment to execute the decisions pursuant to the provisions of Article 68 of the [American] Convention on Human Rights, but of applying a minimum standard of adaptation of the judgment to the domestic constitutional order,”29 and “The execution of the judgment of the Inter-American Court […] would affect essential principles and values of the constitutional order of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and could result in institutional chaos within the system of justice, by attempting to modify the autonomy of the Judiciary established by the Constitution and the disciplinary system establishes by law; moreover, it also aspires to obtain the reinstatement of the, today, former justices of the First Administrative Court.”30 In addition, the Constitutional Chamber asked the Executive, “based on the same principle and pursuant to the provisions of Article 78 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to […] proceed to denounce this Convention, in view of the evident usurpation of functions in which the Inter-American Court has incurred […] with the judgment that is the subject of this decision.”31 3. Arguments of the parties during the private hearing 14. During the private hearing, the State argued, in relation to compliance with the 26 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 166. 27 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 171. 28 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 174. 29 In this regard, the judgment cited, as an example, the decision in which “the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on May 30, 1999, in the case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. was declared unenforceable by the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice of Peru, considering, among other matters, that the Judiciary ‘is autonomous and, in the exercise of its functions, its members do not depend on any administrative authority, which reveals a resounding ignorance of the relevant Peruvian laws’; which ‘attempts to ignore the Peruvian Constitution and subject it to the American Convention on Human Rights in the interpretation that the judges of the said Court make ad libitum in that judgment.’” Judgment 1939 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of December 18, 2008, folio 175. 30 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 176. 31 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 177. 7