Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
These are external links and will open in a new window. "The decision has dealt the final blow to democracy in the country," said the Organisation of American States. The court ruled that the assembly was in contempt and said it would exercise congressional functions. The charge stems from alleged electoral irregularities by three opposition lawmakers in elections in 2015. The head of the OAS NAME_1 NAME_2 accused President NAME_3's government of carrying out what he described as a coup against itself. Brazil's foreign ministry said the court's decision violated the country's separation of powers. Several other Latin American countries expressed concern too. Peru recalled its ambassador to Caracas, saying there had been a rupture of democracy. The United States also condemned Venezuela's government. "This rupture of democratic and constitutional norms greatly damages Venezuela's democratic institutions," said a State Department spokesman, NAME_4. Venezuela's opposition had earlier said President

Summary:
1. Venezuela's Supreme Court has been condemned by Latin American countries after it ruled that the opposition-controlled National Assembly could take over the country's parliament.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
 Write exactly 3 paragraphs each separated with two new lines answering this question. The first paragraph must start with "protection".
user