A/HRC/45/CRP.11 Amazonas state, alleging irregularities.114 Nullifying the four deputies would have effectively reduced the opposition’s two-thirds majority to a simple majority. 74. Nevertheless, the National Assembly proceeded to swear in the parliamentarians from Amazonas. This led to a 2 September 2016 decision by the Supreme Court stating that, due to lack of compliance with the court’s judgment, the National Assembly was in contempt and all of its acts were “manifestly unconstitutional and absolutely null and lacking all validity and legal effect”.115 On this basis, the Supreme Court ruled that the President did not have to pass the 2017 national budget to the National Assembly for approval. 116 75. While the legislature was progressively limited, executive powers were broadened. In January 2016, the Government declared a “state of economic emergency” for a period of 60 days. The decree was to “allow the population to ensure the full enjoyment of their rights and free access to fundamental goods and services, and also to mitigate the effects of induced inflation, speculation, artificially inflated currency, sabotage of the system of distribution of goods and services, as well as to counteract the consequences of the oil price war”. 117 The decree granted the executive powers to enact “social, economic or political measures […] as it deems appropriate to the circumstances”.118 The decree was not passed to the National Assembly for approval, as required by the Constitution.119 76. On 13 May 2016, the executive adopted another “state of exception and economic emergency”, Presidential Decree No. 2323.120 This was also not approved by the National Assembly. This decree granted the executive powers to implement “social, environmental, economic, political and legal” measures to respond to the economic crisis. 121 It also allowed local community citizen organizations to coordinate with State military and police forces in order to maintain public order. 77. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of these and all subesquent decrees declaring states of exception and economic emergency.122 It also held, on 9 June 2016, that the National Assembly could not legislate in matters covered by the state of exception, and that these would be reserved to the President.123 78. Starting in March 2016, the opposition began collecting signatures for a referendum to recall the election of President Maduro and to remove him from power before his presidential term expired in 2019.124 The recall advanced in accordance with the procedural 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 18 For an overview of these judgments, see International Commission of Jurists, The Supreme Court of Justice in Venezuela: an Instrument of the Executive Branch, August 2017, Chapter 1, available at: https://www.icj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Venezuela-Suprem-Court-Publications-ReportsThematic-reports-2017-ENG.pdf. The super majority in the National Assembly would have allowed the opposition to make important political appointments, including to the National Electoral Council. Judgment No. 808 of 2 September 2016. Judgment No. 814 of 11 October 2016. See analysis of this judgment by Professor Allan R. BrewerCarías, Universidad Central de Venezuela, 21 October 2016, available at: http://allanbrewercarias.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/964.-Brewer.-La-Usurpaci%C3%B3n-dela-func.-presupuestaria-por-la-SCl.-Sentencia-SC-814-19-10-2016.pdf. Presidential Decree No. 2184, published in Official Gazette No. 6214, 14 January 2016, art. 1, available at: https://pandectasdigital.blogspot.com/2016/05/decreto-n-2184-mediante-el-cual-se.html Ibid., art. 3. 1999 Constitution, art. 339. Presidential Decree No. 2323, published in Official Gazette No. 6227, 13 May 2016, available at: https://pandectasdigital.blogspot.com/2016/05/decreto-n-2323-de-fecha-13-de-mayo-de.html Ibid., art. 3. Judgment No. 411 of 19 May 2016, available at: https://vlexvenezuela.com/vid/nicolas-maduromoros-640750817?_ga=2.252385289.1255113119.1584543730-451338070.1584124152. Judgment No. 460 of 9 June 2016, available at: https://pandectasdigital.blogspot.com/2016/06/sentencia-que-declara-la.html. This was in accordance Article 72 of the Constitution, which states that any elected public official can be removed from office following the collection of signatures of 20 per cent of the electorate and a subsequent referendum on the recall. See also art. 233 (The President of the Republic shall become permanently unavailable to serve by reason of any of the following events […] recall by popular vote).