for annulment, the Court considered that Article 8(1) of the Convention was violated because the State was unable to justify that the time taken by the SPA to decide this appeal was in keeping with the principle of a reasonable time.20 2. The judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declaring the Judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court unenforceable 13. In its judgment of December 18, 2008, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Chamber decided to declare that “[t]he judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 5, 2008, ordering the reinstatement in their functions of the former justices of the First Administrative Court […], condemning the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to pay sums of money, and to make the publications relating to the judges’ disciplinary system is unenforceable.”21 The Constitutional Chamber based this decision on the following arguments: i) ii) iii) iv) v) 20 The Inter-American Court […] cannot try to exclude or disregard the domestic constitutional order, because the Convention contributes to or complements the Constitution that, in the case of our country, is the supreme law and the basis of the legal system”;22 “Article 23 of the Constitution does not grant international human rights treaties ‘supra-constitutional’ rank, so that when there is opposition or contradiction between a provision of the Constitution and a norm of an international treaty, the Judiciary must determine which is applicable, taking into consideration both the provisions of the said norm and the case law of this Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice”;23 “A system of principles that is supposedly absolute and supra-historical cannot be imposed above the Constitution” and “the theories that attempt to limit national sovereignty and self-determination on the pretext of universal values, are unacceptable”;24 In “the supposed verification by [the Inter-American] Court of the violation of the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention, it issued measures of a compulsory nature regarding the regulation and administration of the Judiciary that are the exclusive competence of the Supreme Court of Justice and established directives for the Legislature with regard to the judicial career and the responsibilities of the judges, violating the sovereignty of the Venezuelan State in the organization of the public powers and in the selection of its officials, which is inadmissible”;25 “Apart from the possible contradiction between the norms that protect individual Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 181. 21 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (file of monitoring compliance, tome I, folio 178). 22 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 163. 23 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 163. 24 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 164. 25 Judgment 1939 of December 18, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, folio 165. 6