requesting the taking of evidence. On November 5, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice again denied his application, holding that his allegations simply "pointed to a mere illegality and lacked a constitutional foundation" and that the underlying events reflected a "mere disagreement with the procedure followed by the Legislative Assembly and with the contents of the resolution removing him from office." The Court concluded that "the Chamber is not a venue for reviewing the judgment exercised by the Legislative Assembly (...) or material assessments or procedural steps." 2 14. In light of these events, the petitioners argued that the State had violated Mr. Colindres' right to a fair trial, to protection from ex-postfacto laws, to a natural or pre-existing judge, to a fair hearing; to his good name and dignity; as well as the political right of access to public office and the right to judicial protection, as recognized in Articles 8, 9, 11, 23 and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. They declared that they had filed their petition within six months of the last court decision sought in the case and had fulfilled all formal requirements for filing a petition under the Convention and the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. B. Position of the State 15. In response, the State argued that the events described by the petitioners' as alleged violations of rights protected by the Convention had been examined by the national courts consistently with due process rules. On the four occasions Mr. Colindres had applied for judicial protection, his applications had been reviewed and decided by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 16. In line with the jurisdiction defined by the Salvadoran Constitution for the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to hear constitutional protection questions, each application heard by that Chamber followed the provisions of the Constitutional Procedure Law as well as due process rules consistently with the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. 17. Rulings in constitutional protection actions, the State points out, are final, become res iudicata, and may not be appealed. Consequently, in the case brought to the Constitutional Chamber to secure recognition 2 Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber, judgment of November 5, 1999. 5