25. On October 12, 1983, the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, en banc, declared that the motion for review filed by Ms. Moya Solís was unfounded. In that decision it indicated as follows: Having seen the motion for review filed by Ms. Norka Moya Solís de Rocha against the decision of the Labor and Labor Communities Tribunal en banc, which resolved not to ratify her in the position of Clerk of the 10th Labor and Labor Communities Court of Lima; WHEREAS: based on the record before this Court, which gave rise to the non-ratification of the appellant, it appears that the Commission on Ratifications found serious shortcomings in the performance of her functions, finding that in one situation the minutes did not include the judge’s signature, but instead that of the clerk; having authorized a certification of notice when the file did not indicate any date of notice; not having forwarded the official notes ordered in the record; having failed to annotate the dates on which deposits were made; as well as the deliveries, and not annotating the number of the certificate or the quantity; therefore the appellant has not properly discharged her functions; in addition, the appellant has not paid the debts contracted, which harms the image of the Tribunal; in keeping with what was reported by Mr. Ugarte del Pino, and reviewing the decision in an en banc session held on this date, IT IS RESOLVED: To find unfounded the motion for review filed by Ms. Norka Moya Solís de la ROCHA.10 2. Motion for amparo 26. On February 17, 1984 the petitioner filed a motion for amparo against the Supreme Resolution of October 12, 1982, before the 16th Civil Court of Lima, alleging that it had relied on a negative report regarding her functions of which she had not been given notice during the proceeding. See alleged that she only came to learn of this document on December 14, 1983, the date on which she was notified of the decision regarding the motion for review, and therefore did not have the opportunity to present evidence against it, nor to study the rest of the records in the proceeding, and that consequently her constitutional rights were violated during the judicial proceeding.11 27. On June 14, 1985 the 16th Civil Court of Lima declared unfounded the motion for amparo filed by the petitioner, arguing that it was not in line with Law No. 23506, on habeas corpus and amparo, which establishes that guarantee actions are not in order when the violation or threat of violation has ceased, or has become irreparable.12 28. That Court indicated: Notwithstanding that the moving party’s non-ratification is based on the considerations that have already been reviewed by the Supreme Court of the Republic en banc, consequently, it cannot make out or constitute a violation or threat of violation of a constitutional or fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.13 3. Motion of appeal 29. On July 1, 1985 the petitioner appealed the judgment handed down by the 16th Civil Court of Lima, asking that the reviewing entity rule on the merits of the matter and not focus on the procedural aspects of the case.14 Annex 7. Copy of the October 12, 1983 decision of the Supreme Court of Justice on the motion for review. Annex 10 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 11 Annex 8. Copy of the amparo action of February 17, 1984 filed by Ms. Moya Solís in response to the decision made regarding the motion for review. Annex 11 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 12 Law No. 23506 on Habeas Corpus and Amparo of the Republic of Peru. 13 Annex 9. Copy of the June 14, 1985 decision of the 16th Civil Court of Lima in response to the amparo action filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 12 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 14 Annex 10. Copy of the motion of appeal of July 1, 1985 filed by Ms. Moya Solís in response to the decision of the 16th Civil Court of Lima with respect to the amparo action. Annex 13 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 10