Case: Chocrón Chocrón v Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of July 1, 2011

Descrpitors: Judicial independence / Immobility principle of temporary judges

Ms. Chocrón was appointed "temporarily" in 2002 as a judge of first instance in the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of ​​Caracas. Although once made public by the Executive Directorate of the magistracy, the appointment was not object of any objection, on February 3, 2003, the Judicial Commission decided to leave it without effect, arguing that certain observations had been made before it. However, the aforementioned observations were not recorded or credited, an absence that motivated Ms. Chocrón to file a series of administrative and judicial appeals that were dismissed.

The Court considers that, in accordance with the principle of judicial independence, different procedural guarantees cannot be established depending on the ownership or provisionality of the magistrate position, since all judges must be free from external pressure to resolve disputes in accordance with the Law. Thus, in the case of temporarily appointed judges, the Court states that they must be appointed through a procedure that guarantees their tenure, so that their removal is justified by compliance with previously established conditions.

In the case of Venezuela, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights considers that its transitional regime serves the legitimate purpose of guaranteeing the suitability of judicial appointments, although it points out that the regime has so far been ineffective in achieving the end sought. In the light of its doctrine, the violation of Article 8.1 of the Convention is considered, since Ms. Chocrón had not been appointed under any resolutory condition, the irremovability, except disciplinary sanction, should have been extended, at least, until it will carry out the public access contest. Not having duly motivated the dismissal decision, the Inter-American Court considers that judicial independence and the procedural guarantees associated with it have been violated.

Read the decision