30 the informative statement of a reporter,108 which is not sufficient to consider it a proven fact. Moreover, the representative submitted the opinion of two experts on the annulment of the appointment of a STJ justice allegedly on the grounds of his status as the rapporteur of a judgment describing as a “power vacuum”109 the events of April 2002. The Court emphasizes that these expert opinions cannot, by themselves, constitute complete proof that an event took place. These expert opinions should be confronted with other elements of proof that should be added to the file and be subject to challenge. The representative also maintained that the number of magistrates of the STJ had been increased with the objective of “obtaining [its] total control.” In this regard, the Court has verified that the STJ Organic Law was passed on May 19, 2004, increasing the number of STJ justices from 20 to 32110 and that the National Assembly appointed said justices on December 13, 2004.111 One of the experts presented by the Commission stated that there was “an increase, motivated by reasons that were unquestionably political in nature, in the number of Justices of the Supreme Tribunal,”112 and, according to one of the persons who provided an informative statement, the increase from 20 to 32 justices was “aimed at regaining absolute control of the highest court;”113 however, the case file contains no other evidence supporting the opinions of the aforementioned persons which, by themselves, cannot be deemed sufficient to find that the highest court of a country is controlled by the Executive Branch. 102. A third element consists of the inciting expressions allegedly uttered by certain justices in favor of the President of Venezuela during the opening of the 2006 court term. As evidence, the Court has only found a reference in an informative statement to “magistrates [who,] in the presence of the Chief of State, voiced political remarks.”114 This statement fails to specify which were the alleged “political remarks” or when were they expressed, and does not explain how they would impair the independence of the Judiciary. 103. As the fourth element of context, the representative alleged the existence of certain statements made by public officials that would point to the Executive Branch’s interference with the Judiciary. In 2005, the then Chief Justice of the STJ qualified the judges [that had just been] sworn in as “Bolivarian.” The Court notes that the Justice’s exact words were as follows: Today, 164 lawyers are being sworn in as republican and Bolivarian judges […]. As we have already said, and we will say it again, we do not want judges who engage in political proselytism. The Constitution forbids political affiliation in both justices of the Supreme 108 The informative deponent stated that “Arrieche (who had blocked the criminal proceedings against the aforementioned military officers) and justices Alberto Martini Urdaneta, Rafael Hernández and Orlando Gravina, of the Electoral Chamber (who found in favor of a presidential recall referendum), were removed from their offices by the National Assembly, whether via removal or retirement.” Cf. statement of Mr. López Albujas, supra note 55, p. 879. 109 Cf. declaration before a public notary (affidavit) by Mr. Román Duque Corredor, dated January 10, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, p. 871) and affidavit of Mr. Jesús María Casal Hernández, supra note 99, p. 844. 110 Cf. article 2, STJ Organic Law, supra note 31. 111 Cf. Legislative Act of December 13, 2004, passed by the National Assembly and published on December 14, 2004 in Official Gazette No. 38.086 (File of Annexes to the Application, Book II, Appendix C.13, pp. 727 and 728). 112 Cf. affidavit of Mr. Casal Hernández, supra note 99, p. 841. 113 Cf. affidavit of Mr. López Albujas, supra note 55, p. 879. 114 Cf. declaration before a public notary (affidavit) by Mr. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez on January 17, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, p. 886).