57 independence of the Judiciary and alleged misuse of government power. As stated above (supra para. 163), such Chamber granted the appeal for annulment and rejected the precautionary amparo action through the judgment rendered on April 18, 2007.228 To this date, no decision on the merits of the appeal for annulment has been rendered. 215. The Court finds that the arguments raised in both petitions for annulment are different in nature since Judge Morales requested, among other things, that the sanction imposed upon her be revoked since she satisfies the requirements for retirement. This latter issue is not present in the appeal filed by the victims. Furthermore, the resolution of the recourse for reconsideration by the CORJS modifies the matter that has to be decided by the CPAM, since the act appealed by Judge Morales was rendered ineffective. The judgment issued by such Chamber only verified this fact and declared lack of a valid purpose. Ultimately, these are two separate procedures. Therefore, the Court believes that the State has not violated the general clause of non-discrimination as enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the substantive right to be heard within a reasonable time, under the provisions of Article 8(1) thereof. VIII ARTICLE 29 (C) AND (D) OF THE CONVENTION229 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 3 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER230 216. The representative held that the Inter-American Democratic charter “is not simply a political statement without any legal value but the reflection of prior Laws.” The representative added that in such instrument “States undertook international obligations that can never be irrelevant for the purposes of exercising human rights.” According to the representative, a combined reading of these Articles allows an inferral of a “right to democracy” that in this case is related to “the exercise of power in accordance with the Rule of Law, the doctrine of separation of powers, and independence of the Judiciary.” In this sense, the representative alleged that “the violation of the rights of petitioners is [t]he consequence of the weakening of 228 Cf. judgment No. 535 of April 18, 2007 issued by the CPAM, supra note 184, pp. 4954 to 4983. 229 Article 29 of the American Convention establishes that: No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a. permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein; b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; c. precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; or d. excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have. 230 Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter states that: Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.