3 on June 19, 1997 the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil ordered that the ruling be revoked in that payment there under would be incomplete. 13. The petitioners allege that the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil ordered the lower court to carry out what was ordered in the decision of April 24, 1996 and to provide for payment of 27,000 dollars for the bonus and 81,000 dollars for unpaid compensation with the triple surcharge. They state that the defense for the Club Sport Emelec, abusing the law, filed a cassation appeal, which was rejected on April 19, 1999 by the Second Chamber for Labor and Social Matters of the Supreme Court. 14. They alleged that once the proceeding was resubmitted to the Fourth Labor Court of Guayas for enforcement, that court issued a ruling on June 28, 1999 settling the amounts, including the bonus and the triple surcharge on unpaid compensation. They allege that on July 19, 1999 the Court inexplicably issued a new ruling with a new settlement that omitted the bonus and the triple surcharge on unpaid compensation. 15. They state that in response the attorney representing the alleged victim filed a complaint against the Fourth Labor Court of Guayas with the National Judicial Council. In a ruling dated March 24, 2000 the Council found that the conduct of Judge Advocate Campos constitutes a repeated distortion and failure to do what she had been expressly ordered to heed and do, incurring disrespect for the decision issued by a higher court, outside the procedural and jurisdictional autonomy invoked by the accused. As a result, the National Judiciary Council sanctioned the Judge Advocate with a monetary penalty of 50% of her basic salary. The petitioners state that despite the sanction, on September 10, 1999 the Fourth Labor Court of Guayas admitted the appeal filed by the Club Sport Emelec, even though the ruling of June 19, 1997 had already become final and was no longer subject to appeal. They state that jurisdiction to rule on the appeal fell to the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil. 16. The petitioners allege that they filed seven briefs with the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil to have the rulings submitted to the Enforcement Court so that it would proceed to enforce the decision, due to the fact that the appeal granted was illegal. They allege that the attorney defending the Club Sport Emelec asked the Chamber of Associate Judges to postpone processing by the lead Chamber, which was granted. They indicate that on October 17, 2000 the courthouse post box belonging to the attorney representing the alleged victim was broken into and all notices deposited as of that date were stolen, including the decision of the Chamber of Associate Judges. They state that in view of this the petitioners were extra-officially informed of the decision of the Chamber of Associate Judges of October 16, 2000, which resolved the appeal filed and omitted the bonus and the triple surcharge on unpaid compensation and also deemed that an exchange rate from ten years earlier should be used instead of the exchange rate in effect on the date of payment. 17. They allege that since the decision of April 24, 1996 was again altered by a ruling dated October 16, 2000, a cassation appeal was filed on December 19, 2000, which was granted on January 23, 2001. However, they allege that on June 1, 2001 the Chamber of Associate Judges of the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil revoked admission of the appeal. They allege that a de facto recourse (recurso de hecho) and petition for nullification were filed but were denied on August 7, 2001 and April 7, 2003 respectively.