and because he had a clean professional record.46 45. On May 14, 1996, the CNM issued Decision No. 051-96-CNM and declared the disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Cordero Bernal open due to “serious irregularities in the exercise of his functions.”47 46. On May 29, 1996, Mr. Cordero Bernal presented another brief answering the charges and indicated that the decision under investigation was an act of a jurisdictional nature. He stressed that the final decision in the criminal proceedings for illicit drug-trafficking had determined that the defendants were not guilty, and this was consequent with his decision.48 47. On August 14, 1996, the CNM issued Decision No. 008-96-PCNM ordering the dismissal of Mr. Cordero Bernal, required the cancellation of his appointment, and the recording of the decision in his personal file.49 Among other matters, the decision indicated that “the conduction of the judge merits disciplinary sanction because no rational support is to be found for the premature unconditional release that he granted, and that conduct is defined as an offense and one of a serious nature, and therefore falls within the circumstances of article 31, paragraph 2, of Law No. twenty-six thousand three hundred and ninety-seven; that is, a serious act that, without being a crime, compromises the dignity of the office and devalues it in the opinion of the public.” E. Amparo procedure 48. On September 9, 1996, Mr. Cordero Bernal filed an application for amparo against the National Council of the Judiciary. He requested the annulment of the decision ordering his dismissal. According to Mr. Cordero Bernal, even though the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary and the Constitution established that the decisions of the CNM could not be contested, the application for amparo was admissible owing to infringement of the right to due process. He also argued that the guarantee of tenure for judges had been ignored.50 49. On November 27, 1996, in a first instance judgment, the First Public Law Court declared the application for amparo inadmissible.51 The court found that the decision ordering Mr. Cordero Bernal’s dismissal contained “a full examination of the administrative disciplinary proceeding” that “allowed it to be concluded that this was sufficiently substantiated and, therefore, had been issued observing the constitutional requirement analyzed, which means that this decision cannot be contested and the application for amparo that seeks to challenge it is inadmissible.”52 Consequently and according to the court, the dismissal decision could not be reviewed because it had been issued without infringing due process. The decision was Cf. Expanded brief answering the charges presented by Mr. Cordero Bernal on December 11, 1995 (evidence file, folios 60 and 61). 46 47 National Council of the Judiciary. Decision No. 051-96-CNM of May 14, 1996 (evidence file, folio 63). 48 Cf. Brief answering the charges presented by Mr. Cordero Bernal on May 29, 1996 (evidence file, folios 66 to 73). 49 to 13). Cf. National Council of the Judiciary. Decision No. 008-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996 (evidence file, folios 9 Cf. Application for amparo filed by Mr. Cordero Bernal before the Public Law Court on September 9, 1996 (evidence file, folios 75 to 83). 50 51 Cf. The First Public Law Court. Decision of November 27, 1996 (evidence file, folios 1380 to 1383). 52 The First Public Law Court. Decision of November 27, 1996 (evidence file, folio 1383). 13