66 3.3. Adaptation of domestic laws to the provisions of the Convention 251. The Commission requested that “immediate measures aimed at promoting the enactment of the Venezuelan Code of Judicial Ethics be adopted, so that an end may be put to the exceptional functioning of the disciplinary jurisdiction regarding judges,” thus ensuring that “this jurisdiction is in conformity with the American Convention and secures the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary.” The representative agreed with the Commission and further requested the adoption of “such measures as may be necessary to […] ensure that in the process of selection of judges no political criteria or other undue considerations are applied.” 252. The State argued that “no reparation is in order as the conduct of the State conforms to the local legal provisions and the International Law applicable to the case, since the application filed by the Commission has no valid purpose or grounds, for the State of Venezuela has caused no damage whatsoever to the petitioners.” 253. As established above, in 2006 the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ261 declared the “unconstitutional legislative inaction on the part of the National Assembly […] in connection with the legislative procedure instituted to enact the socalled bill for the Code of Ethics […], drafted by the Assembly in 2003, which in the end was not promulgated.” Taking into account that the Venezuelan Judicial Power itself has considered it imperative that the Code of Ethics be enacted and that the transitional regime has extended over nine years, and in view of the declared violations of Article 2 of the Convention, this Court determines that the State must adopt such measures as may be required to pass the Code of Ethics within the term of one year as from notice of this Judgment. Furthermore, the Court deems that as long as the provisional regime is in force, the State must ensure both the impartiality of the disciplinary organ, permitting, inter alia, that the members of the CORJS be challenged, and its independence, providing for an appropriate selection and appointment process and secured tenure of office. 4. Costs and expenses 254. The Commission requested “payment of costs and expenses duly proven [...] as incurred in connection with the proceedings started both at the domestic and international levels.” 255. The representative alleged that “the expenses incurred in connection with bringing the case before the domestic courts, of judicial investigation, press, and television, and of photocopies and archival preparation” amounts to US $ 3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars), which, according to the representative, must be reimbursed by the State to Juan Carlos Apitz. The representative further requested the amount of “US $ 2,460.00 (two thousand four hundred and sixty United States dollars) for “two air tickets” for Juan Carlos Apitz. For “two hotel rooms for three days in Washington” for Héctor Faúndez Ledesma and Juan Carlos Apitz, “plus meals and transportation expenses” the representative requested reimbursement to Mr. Apitz of “US $ 2,836.00 (two thousand eight hundred and thirty-six United States dollars).” For “tickets Caracas-San José– Caracas” for the victims of the instant case and their representative, he requested 261 note 13. Cf. judgment No. 1048 of May 18, 2006 issued by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters, supra