appealed by a brief presented on December 10, 1996.53 50. On September 24, 1997, the Transitory Corporative Public Law Chamber issued a second instance judgment confirming the decision to declare the application for amparo inadmissible.54 It argued that, according to article 142 of the Peruvian Constitution, the decisions of the CNM concerning the evaluation and ratification of judges could not be reviewed. Mr. Cordero Bernal filed the corresponding remedies.55 On May 8, 1998, the Constitutional Court considered that the disciplinary proceeding “was conducted pursuant to the essential standards of due process, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the contested decision lacked substantiation owing to its very wording […].” Based on the foregoing, in the Court’s opinion, the application for amparo was admissible. Therefore, it analyzed the merits of the matter and rejected the application because it did not find a violation of due process.56 F. Criminal proceedings 51. In a decision of June 30, 1997, the Executive Committee of the Public Prosecution Service declared well-founded a complaint for the offenses of breach of trust and complicity filed against Mr. Cordero Bernal, decided to open criminal proceedings against him, and forwarded the case file to the Supreme Prosecutor for execution of that decision.57 52. Following the processing of the criminal proceedings, on September 24, 1999, the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco-Pasco delivered judgment acquitting Mr. Cordero Bernal of the offense of complicity and convicting him of the offense of breach of trust.58 Both the accused and the prosecutor appealed this decision.59 The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal for annulment.60 On December 15, 1999, a second instance judgment declared that the first instance judgment was null and void in relation to the acquittal for the offense of complicity and required a new judgment to be issued on the charges of the offenses of complicity and breach of trust, because all the evidence had not been analyzed.61 53. On January 21, 2000, the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco-Pasco issued a new judgment acquitting Mr. Cordero Bernal of the offense of complicity and convicting him of the offense of breach of trust.62 The parties appealed this decision.63 In second instance, on March 30, 2000, the first instance decision was again declared null and void considering that, owing 53 Cf. Remedy of appeal of December 10, 1996 (evidence file, folios 1385 to 1387). 54 Cf. Transitory Corporative Public Law Chamber. Judgment of September 24, 1997 (evidence file, folio 90). Cf. Special remedy of October 16, 1997, filed by Hector Fidel Cordero Bernal (evidence file, folio 1389 to 1893) and brief of Mr. Cordero Bernal of March 31, 1998, requesting the President of the Constitutional Court to declare admissible the application for amparo he had filed against Decision No. 008-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996 (evidence file, folio 95 to 99). On June 16, 1998, Mr. Cordero Bernal presented a brief expanding the appeal presented on March 31, 1998 (evidence file, folios 101 to 103). 55 56 Cf. Constitutional Court. Judgment of May 8, 1998 (evidence file, folios 92 and 93). 57 Cf. Executive Committee of the Public Prosecution Service. Decision No. 702-97-MP-CEMP of July 30, 1997 (evidence file, folios 105 to 107). 58 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco. Judgment of September 24, 1999 (evidence file, folios 38 to 48). Cf. Remedy of appeal filed after the reading of the judgment, September 24, 1999 (evidence file, folio 143). Appeal filed by the Superior Prosecutor, October 28, 1999 (evidence file, folio 146). 59 60 Cf. The Public Attorney. Appeal for annulment, September 27, 1999 (evidence file, folios 148 and 149). 61 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco. Judgment of December 15, 1999 (evidence file, folios 151 to 154). 62 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco. Judgment of January 21, 2000 (evidence file, folios 156 to 171). Cf. Remedy of appeal filed after the reading of the judgment, January 21, 2000 (evidence file, folios 173 and 174). 63 14