30. On September 2, 1985, the Third Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision of June 14, 1985, indicating that: Intervening as the Judge writing for the Chamber, Mr. Urrutia Carrillo; in keeping with the opinion of the Prosecutor at folio 29; on its basis: THEY AFFIRMED: the judgment appealed at folio 24 of June 14 last that declared Unfounded the amparo action filed at folio 45 by Ms. Norka Moya Solís de Rocha.15 4. Motion for nullity 31. On September 17, 1985, the petitioner filed a motion for nullity before the Third Civil Chamber of Lima, alleging that “it is sought to declare an Administrative Resolution immutable as though it were res judicata.”16 32. On January 17, 1986, the Office of the Attorney General stated its position regarding the decision of the Supreme Court, indicating that: The judgment of first instance, like the judgment on appeal, has been issued without having at hand the record of ratifications in which the moving party Norka Moya Solís de Rocha was separated from her position. Without taking account of that proceeding it cannot be known whether the Labor Tribunal committed the irregularities on which the amparo action is based. Such was understood by the judge to refer the official note, a copy of which is at folio 9 of the Civil Chamber, on issuing the resolution at folio 14. Without that record one could not by any means issue a ruling if one considers that the copy of folio 3 is illegible and does not allow one to form an idea of the bases that underpin that resolution.17 33. The Office of the Attorney General indicated that taking into account the foregoing, it considered it proper to find the resolution of September 2, 1985 null and void, and overturned the decision of June 14, 1985, and that accordingly the court should issue a new judgment, giving consideration to the record.18 34. On August 4, 1986, the Supreme Court of Justice declared null and void the resolution of September 2, 1985, issued by the Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and overturned the judgment of first instance of June 14, 1985.19 In that decision it explained: In keeping with the opinion of the Prosecutor; they declared: NULL AND VOID, the judgment at folio 30, of September …, 1985, and OVERTURNED the one appealed at folio 24, of June 14, 1985; THEY ORDERED: that the judge in the case should issue a new judgment mindful of the record of ratifications; in the proceedings brought by Ms. Norka Moya Solís de Rocha against the decision of the Labor and Labor Communities Tribunal sitting en banc; regarding the amparo action; and they remanded them.20 5. Second ruling in response to the amparo action Annex 11. Copy of the decision of September 16, 1985 of the Third Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima in response to the motion of appeal filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 14 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 16 Annex 12. Copy of the motion for nullity of September 19, 1985 filed by Ms. Moya Solís in response to the decision on the motion of appeal. Annex 15 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 17 Annex 13. Copy of the pronouncement of the Office of the Attorney General of January 17, 1986, before the Supreme Court of Justice in the case of Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 16 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 18 Annex 13. Copy of the pronouncement by the Office of the Attorney General of January 17, 1986, before the Supreme Court of Justice in the case of Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 16 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 19 Annex 14. Copy of the decision of August 4, 1986 of the Supreme Court of Justice in response to the motion for nullity filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 17 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 20Annex 14. Copy of the Supreme Court of Justice decision of August 4, 1986 in response to the motion for nullity filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 17 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 15