CONSIDERING THAT: 1. Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) since August 9, 1977, and recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. 2. One of the inherent attributes of the jurisdictional functions of the Court is to monitor compliance with its decisions. Moreover, owing to the final and non-appealable nature of the judgments of the Court, as established in Article 67 of the American Convention, they must be complied with fully and promptly by the State. Also, the State must ensure the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court in its decisions at the domestic level,3 pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention. 3. The States Parties to the Convention that have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court are compelled to comply with the obligations established by the Court. These obligations include the State’s duty to advise the Court of the steps taken to comply with the measures ordered by the Court in the said decisions. The prompt observance of the State’s obligation to inform the Court of how it is complying with each aspect ordered by the latter is essential for evaluating the status of compliance with the Judgment as a whole.4 4. In notes sent by the Secretariat of the Court (supra having seen paragraphs 2 and 6 and 7), the State was reminded of its obligation to provide information on the measures taken to comply with the Judgment. 5. Notwithstanding the above, based on the information available, the Court: (1) will recall what was indicated in the Judgment handed down in the instant case, and then summarize (2) the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and (3) the arguments of the parties during the private hearing held in this case. Having clarified the foregoing, it will analyze: (4) the obligation to comply with the decisions issued by the Inter-American Court, and (5) the application of Article 65 of the American Convention in this case. 1. The Judgment handed down by the Inter-American Court 6. The Court examined the disciplinary proceedings that led to the removal, in October 2003, of three of the five justices who, at that time, constituted the second most important court of Venezuela. In the ruling that resulted in the removal, the five judges of the First Court granted preventive amparo (constitutional protection) that suspended the effects of an administrative act that had refused to register a sale. The granting of this amparo was characterized as an “inexcusable miscarriage of justice” by the Administrative and Political Chamber (hereinafter “SPA”) of the Supreme Court of Justice. This led to a disciplinary proceeding, because this error constituted grounds for removal. However, the judges’ disciplinary body, the Commission for the Operation and Restructuring of the Judicial System (hereinafter “CFRSJ”), ordered the removal merely transcribing the considerations used by the SPA to characterize the said decision as an inexcusable miscarriage of justice. 3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 131, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 24, 2012, second considering paragraph. 4 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 22, 2005, seventh considering paragraph, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of October 24, 2012, third considering paragraph. 3