10. At its plenary session of July 2, 1998, the Legislative Assembly decided to remove Mr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres from the office of full magistrate of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The basis for this decision was that the reasons that had prompted Decree 899, which ordered his removal in 1997, still existed. 11. On July 15, 1998, the alleged victim filed with the Supreme Court a constitutional protection action against the legislative decree. The stated grounds for this appeal was that the only way Mr. Colindres could have been removed from office was by an impeachment procedure if he had committed a crime. He also argued that the Legislative Assembly could not exercise functions beyond those assigned to it by the Constitution and, accordingly, had no authority to establish an ad hoc procedure to remove him from office, especially when that procedure disregarded his right to defend himself and meant that he was being tried twice for the same occurrences. His application also argued that the Special Committee violated his right to due process by not responding to any of his petitions and by concealing the exculpatory evidence submitted by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Lastly, he argued that one of the reasons given for his removal was that he had allegedly committed the crime of contempt, but was never given a hearing in that connection. 12. On May 4, 1999, the Supreme Court rejected the constitutional protection application. The Court based its decision on two considerations. First, it argued that there was a gap in the law as regards the procedure for removing magistrates of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, but this gap had been legitimately filled by the Special Committee of the Legislature, which was empowered to hear the removal case. Second, it pointed out that Mr. Colindres had not been tried twice for the same events, but for a continuous conduct involving different events. In addition, the Supreme Court indicated that the first constitutional protection action that led to the cancellation of the removal had taken the matter back to its initial point of departure, setting aside the first decision, so that it could not be argued that there were two different decisions. The Supreme Court did not deal with the other allegations of procedural violations raised by the plaintiff. 13. On July 27, 1999, the alleged victim filed a new Constitutional protection action reiterating the procedural violations that in his judgment had affected his right to due process of law, including the concealment of evidence produced by the Supreme Tribunal and the failure to include in the case file his brief defending himself and 4