Judgment, that: [T]he formal and actual execution […] of […] the provisions of the decision of August 5, [2008,] involves immediate and direct action by [several] organs that form part of the branches or powers [of the State]. In relation to […] operative paragraph 17 [regarding the reinstatement of the victims to the Judiciary], the potential formal and actual execution corresponds to the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which has the constitutional mandate, pursuant to article 267 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter the Venezuelan Constitution) to guide, regulate and administer the Judiciary through any of its internal organs. The potential execution of the other operative paragraph […] regarding the publications compliance with which is established in [paragraph] 249 of [the Judgment], corresponds to the Executive through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The other operative paragraph is number 19, regarding the sanction and definitive promulgation of the Venezuelan Code of Judicial Ethics, which unquestionably corresponds to the branch of the public powers that exercises legislative functions, and this is the National Assembly. […] In addition, it is important to stress that the 1999 Constituent Assembly established, in Article 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 of the Constitution, a broad and extensive list of competences attributed to the Constitutional Chamber for the exercise of constitutional justice, and within this list of competences and pursuant to the reiterated and uncontested case law of this Constitutional Chamber, not only is it responsible for control of the constitutionality of public decisions, but also any other decision the execution of which is intended to be carried out in the domestic sphere and the constitutionality of which is questioned […]; nevertheless, it should be noted, without ruling on the merit or validity of this decision, but simply analyzing whether its formal and actual execution, in the domestic sphere, contradicts, attacks or infringes the constitutional public order of the Republic. [T]he Attorney General’s Office […] involved in operative paragraph […] 16 of the judgment of the Court of August 5, 2008, filed, with the legitimacy that it possesses, an appeal for constitutional interpretation before the Constitutional Chamber in which, according to the criteria of the Attorney General’s Office, the constitutionality of the execution of the judgment of the [Inter-American] Court in the domestic sphere was questioned, because the Attorney General’s Office considered that it infringed provisions relating to the constitutional public order. The appeal was decided by decision 1939 of the Constitutional Chamber of December 18, 2008, which established that the judgment of [the Inter-American Court] of August 5, 2008, was unenforceable in the domestic sphere, because the Constitutional Chamber found that it was contrary to explicit provisions of the Constitution. [T]he Constitutional Chamber, in decision […] 1541 of 2008, […] indicated expressly that the Venezuelan State, as a subject of international law, is bound by the principle of pacta sunt servanda. It should also be emphasized that it does not deny […] that, under article 23 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, all those international treaties validly signed and ratified by the Republic that establish more favorable provisions with regard to human rights have constitutional rank in the domestic sphere, so that status of the Republic, as a subject of international law, is not being denied and is not a matter for discussion at this time. […] However, on the other hand, in the domestic sphere, the national organs, as distinct from the State as a subject of international law, the domestic national organs are bound, above all, by the legal norms and judgment issued by the judicial organs, even though it is not denied that the actions of the latter, in the domestic sphere, may have repercussions in the international sphere; in other words, giving rise to State responsibility as a subject of international law. Based on all the foregoing, it can be seen that, in view of Judgment 1939 of 2008 of the Constitutional Chamber, which is binding in nature in the domestic sphere, the Plenary Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice finds that there is an obstacle of a strictly domestic nature, so that the said Plenary Chamber considers that it would be contra legem for the Chamber not to abide by the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber. […] [I]t is not the purpose of this hearing […], and is not appropriate to issue value judgments on the judgment of the Constitutional Chamber 1939 of 2008, because, in addition, it is in no way binding on this […] Inter-American Court […], its scope is limited and exhausted in the domestic sphere […], but […] it does place limits on whether or not the national organs, in the specific case the Supreme Court of Justice, may proceed to execute the judgment. Similarly, the above-mentioned judgment 1939 of 2008 of the Constitutional Chamber inhibits the Executive from complying with operative paragraphs 16 and 18. Regarding operative paragraph […] 8