JUDGMENT: the amparo action filed by Ms. Norka Moya Solís de Rocha against the judicial branch is deemed UNFOUNDED.25 6. Motion of Appeal 38. On May 19, 1997 the alleged victim appealed the ruling of December 30, 1996 to the 16th Civil Court of Lima, arguing that she had no knowledge of the decision of the Commission of Judges (Comisión de Vocales) in which her non-ratification was decided, and that the record of ratifications had not been taken into account in making this decision, since the document that was in the proceeding before the 16th Court was a copy of the Act of Ratification sent by the Administrative Clerk to the Court, since the record of ratifications had not been found.26 She also indicated that only recently had she come to learn of this Act, due to the fact that earlier she had not been informed of the bases for her non-ratification; accordingly, she asked that said resolution be revoked.27 39. On March 20, 1998, the Transitory Corporative Chamber Specialized in Public Law affirmed the judgment that was appealed, stating: FIRST: That Amparo actions are in order when the act constituting the violation attacks a constitutional right, in a manner that is certain and imminent, and that can be put back in the same position as prior to the threat of the violation; SECOND: That in the instant case the complainant alleges facts that require proof, a situation that cannot happen in a constitutional proceeding, in which there is no evidentiary phase in light of the residual and highly urgent nature of guarantee actions; on these bases; THEY AFFIRMED: the judgment appealed from folios 108 to 110, of December 30, 1996, declaring UNFOUNDED the constitutional amparo action brought at folios 4 ff. by Norka Moya Solís de Rocha against the Judicial Branch.28 7. Motion for nullity 40. On April 8, 1998 the alleged victim filed a motion for nullity against the pronouncement of March 20, 1998. In that motion she indicated that: first, the 16th Civil Court had not taken into account the record of ratifications from the alleged victim’s proceeding in making the decision on the amparo action subsequent to the order of the Supreme Court of Justice. Second, that the Transitory Corporative Chamber Specialized in Public Law, on resolving the appeal of the second pronouncement by the 16th Court, had indicated that the petitioner should have challenged the non-ratification of September 10, 1982, by the Commission of Judges, even though she was only told verbally of this Decision and the resolution of non-ratification; she was never notified of them. Finally, it stated that the 16th Court had indicated that the motion could not go forward since an evidentiary stage was necessary, which was not to be found in the amparo action, even though the petitioner had not requested any evidence. Therefore, the alleged victim stated that this judgment violated the mandate expressed by the Supreme Court.29 41. On October 29, 1998, the Chamber on Constitutional Law and Social Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice declared the action filed by the petitioner unfounded due to: Annex 21. Copy of the decision of December 30, 1996 of the 16th Civil Court of Lima in response to the amparo motion, after the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex 18 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 26 Annex 22. Copy of the motion of appeal of May 19, 1997, in response to the second decision on the amparo motion filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 19 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000; Annex 28. Response of March 34, 1996 from the Administrative Delegate of the Chambers and Courts to the President of the Superior Court of Justice in response to the request for the record of ratifications by the 33rd Civil Court of Lima, indicating that the record requested is not to be found. Annex 25.18 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 27 Annex 23. Copy of the amparo action of May 19, 1997, in response to the second decision on the amparo motion filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 19 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 28 Annex 24. Copy of the decision of the Specialized Transitory Corporative Chamber of Public Law of March 20, 1998 in response to the second amparo action filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 20 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 29 Annex 25. Copy of the motion for nullity of April 8, 1998, in response to the second decision on the amparo motion filed by Ms. Moya Solís. Annex 21 to petitioner’s brief of March 21, 2000. 25