33 that were the property of private companies;125 ordered the transfer of the constitutionally allocated revenues owed to the State of Carabobo;126 and invalidated administrative decisions that ended the irremovability of the workers represented by a still unchartered oil workers’ union.127 113. The evidence provided by the Commission and the representatives in support of the claim that such judgments are “contrary to the [interests of the] administration” consists of several media articles that make reference to the “controversial rulings”128 of the First Court, which were allegedly “criticized by the Government.”129 The State contested this allegation and claimed that there had been no determination as to “which organ(s) and/or authorized agency(ies) had interpreted the judgments as contrary to the interests of the government” and that there is “no instrument to measure public opinion […] that provides an uncontestable assessment of the alleged impact.” 114. The Court notes that, according to the media articles, there was criticism targeting, among others, the rulings ordering the “suspen[sion of] investigation councils against dissident military officers” and the “de-militarization of the State of Miranda,” but the articles fail to specify which public officials criticized the rulings in question or what the specific statements against those rulings were. Moreover, according to one of the expert opinions, the First Court was the subject of “public questioning of political nature” by the President of Venezuela;130 however, this opinion does not specifically identify which rulings were allegedly criticized or how they were criticized. On the other hand, at the public hearing Messrs. Apitz and Rocha addressed the decision that ordered the overflight of helicopters and how such order was disobeyed by the security agencies. They also dealt with the judgment on the Investigation Councils set up against dissident military officers and the reactions of the Executive Branch urging that they be disregarded. They stated that, in the context of the de-militarization of the State of Miranda, high-ranking public authorities urged that such decision be disregarded and uttered verbal accusations against them. However, aside from their statements, they did not provide other evidence and, accordingly, the Court finds that the allegations of fact have not been demonstrated. The only possible conclusion that the Court can infer from the text of the judgments of the First Court is that such judgments created restrictions on the 125 Cf. judgment No. 75 of January 22, 2003 issued by the First Court (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.1.g, pp. 880 to 905), and judgment No. 155 of January 24, 2003 issued by the First Court (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.1.h, pp. 908 to 923). 126 Cf. judgment No. 552 of February 26, 2003 issued by the First Court (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.1.i, pp. 926 to 938). 127 Cf. judgment No. 1852 of June 12, 2003 issued by the First Court (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.1.j, pp. 940 to 955). 128 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Los polémicos fallos” [Controversial Rulings], published in El Universal, supra note 15. 129 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Una juez y unos fallos - Retaliaciones” [A Judge and some Rulings – Retaliations], published on October 2 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1268); newspaper article entitled “Protección del TSJ exigen magistrados de Corte Primera” [First Court judges demand STJ protection], published on October 10, 2003 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1277), and newspaper article entitled “¡La Corte Administrativa!” [Administrative Court!], published on September 27, 2003 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1290). 130 Cf. affidavit of Mr. Casal Hernández, supra note 99, p. 850.