28 Court’s view that the CORJS’s failure to rule on these complaints in its resolution, as well as its failure to assess the suitability of the judges other than in relation to the commission of the inexcusable error turns the complaints irrelevant for the purpose of determining the reasons that led said organ to remove the judges. * * * 93. Lastly, the representative argued that the victims “requested the submission of recorded information, as evidence, in order to determine whether the order of amparo issued by the First Court […] was indeed constitutive in nature, as argued by the [IGC].” According to the representative, the CORJS “never ruled on whether such evidence should be admitted” and “never took any steps towards obtaining such evidence.” The State noted that “the same evidentiary goal could have been achieved by requesting a certified copy of the legal tradition of the property.” 94. Based on the above, the Court finds that the facts that (1) the CORJS did not rule on the request for evidence submitted by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha, and (2) such evidence was available to the victims, who could have obtained it directly at the relevant state office for subsequent submission to the CORJS, are not in dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the point at issue is whether the CORJS was required to rule on the victims’ request for evidence. It is the Court’s view that such was the only evidentiary request made by the victims and it was intended to provide clarification on a decisive aspect of the case, i.e. that the amparo by the First Court in fact did not produce constitutive effects and that, therefore, there was no inexcusable judicial error. Considering the above, in the Court’s opinion, at the very least the CORJS should have ruled by allowing or denying the request for evidence, or even by ordering that such evidence be obtained and submitted by the victims themselves. Because of its complete silence on the matter, the Court considers the State to have violated the “due guarantees” ordered in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Messrs. Apitz and Rocha. 6. Independence 95. The matter of judicial independence that is at issue in the instant case involves two interrelated components. First, the case falls within an alleged context of lack of independence of the Venezuelan Judiciary. Second, there is the alleged lack of independence of the CORJS. 6.1. Independence of the Judiciary, in general 96. The representative argued that “the removal of the judges of the First Court […] falls within a broader political context” in which the Government allegedly carried out a “refinement or ‘ideological cleansing’ of the courts of Venezuela, aimed at getting rid of any judges who […] were not aligned with the political project devised by the President of Venezuela,” thereby “interfer[ing] with the independence […] of the Judiciary in general.” investigation into the inexcusable judicial error. As regards the second accusation, the file of the case before this Court contains no background documents.