31 Tribunal and all other judges of Venezuela. We do not want judges who are sympathetic to the opposition party or the Government. We want judges who will respect and guarantee the enforcement of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. That was the intended meaning of my words.115 104. The second statement was apparently made by a representative of the National Assembly, who allegedly said that: Even though we representatives hold the power over this choice, the President of the Republic was consulted and his opinion was very much taken into consideration […] Let’s be clear, we are not going to score goals against our own team. The list included eligible people from the opposition party. The opposition could have used them to reach an agreement at these last sessions, but chose not to do so. So we are not going to be doing that for them. There is no one in the group of candidates who will go against our interests. 105. The last statement was taken from a February 8, 2007 interview of Mrs. Luisa Estella Morales, a former judge of the First Court, in which she stated as follows: It is a secret to no one that, at the time we [she and former judge of the First Court Evelyn Marrero] left the Judiciary the historical and political circumstances that surrounded the Tribunal led the country, perhaps not to an upheaval, but to a series of readjustments within the Judiciary… We needed to leave.116 106. As regards these statements, the Court notes that the first one was provided by the representative out of context; however, if viewed as a whole, it rather appears to deny the interference it is intended to prove. As regards the second statement, the evidence submitted to this Court to prove that the Assembly representative did actually make such statements consists of the statement of Mrs. Ruggeri117 and that of Mr. Edgar José López Albujas.118 No copy of the original document from which Ruggeri and López obtained the information was made available to this Court. Accordingly, the Court cannot verify that the statement was indeed made as indicated. Lastly, the Court finds the statement of judge Morales to be ambiguous, with it failing to conclusively demonstrate the influence of the other branches of government on the Judiciary. 107. Lastly, the representative submitted an expert opinion that makes reference to a pattern of instances of dismissal or removal of judges for political reasons,119 but the case file contains no evidence on which the Court can verify such opinion, which, in and of itself, is insufficient to deem the alleged pattern as an established one. 108. All of the above having been taken into consideration, the Court has only been able to verify that the number of justices of the Supreme Tribunal was indeed increased and that certain statements were indeed made by public officials or members of the Judiciary. However, that is not grounds for the Court to reach any conclusion whatsoever regarding the existence of the alleged interference of the Executive Branch with the Judiciary. Neither does the file of the instant case contain conclusive evidence that the Judiciary has been the subject of ideological “cleansing.” 115 Cf. newspaper article entitled “TSJ otorgó la titularidad a 164 jueces ‘bolivarianos’” [“STJ grants tenure to 164 ‘Bolivarian’ judges”], supra note 13. 116 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Morales dirigirá con amplias facultades el Poder Judicial” [“Morales will lead the Judiciary Power with ample authority”] published on February 8, 2007 in El Universal on February 8, 2007 (Evidence file, Book V, p. 1349). 117 Cf. affidavit of Mrs. Ruggeri, supra note 33, p. 744. 118 Cf. affidavit of Mr. López Albujas, supra note 55, p. 879. 119 Cf. affidavit of Mr. Duque Corredor, supra note 109, p. 867.