decision No. 81-2000 did bear the signature of the Human Rights Ombudsman. 41 He said that the causes that led to Mrs. Maldonado's dismissal were of a personal nature and that, therefore, Articles 74.4 and 74.15 of the Personnel Regulations where applicable, "without the Ombudsman at any time becoming … judge and penalizer, since a competent court will decide her situation.”42 He added that the allegation that prompted her dismissal “reflects conduct not desirable in [those] who defend human rights.” 43 2.3. Appeal to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters 48. On June 20, 2000, in keeping with Article 80 of the Ombudsman’s Personnel Regulations, Olga Maldonado filed an appeal with the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters against the denial of the petition for review by the Human Rights Ombudsman.44 She said that the reason for her dismissal was not consistent with the causes established in Articles 74.4 and 74.15 of the Personnel Regulations.45 49. Mrs. Maldonado stated that "none of the facts or acts alleged as grounds for dismissal is consistent with the allegations that [her] siblings have made against [her].” 46 She said that those facts were false and that "proof of that is that [she had] never been summoned by the courts of justice to answer the accusations made against [her].”47 She held that the Ombudsman had made a "serious evaluation error" since the photocopy of the notarized document that was presented by her brothers did contain the three signatures, though hers was illegible as it was very close to that of the authorizing notary. 48 50. She said that the appeal was admissible under Article 80 of the Personnel Rules of the Ombudsman's Office49, which allows such remedies to be invoked in two instances: (i) if the petition for review is refused; or (ii) if the review is not decided within 10 days.50 51. On June 26, 2000, the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters issued a decision abstaining from hearing the appeal filed by Olga Maldonado. 51 It found that it was 41 Annex 16. Official Letter No. 285-2000-URH from the Chief of the Human Resources Unit of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated June 26, 2000. Appendix 4 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 42 Annex 16. Official Letter No. 285-2000-URH from the Chief of the Human Resources Unit of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated June 26, 2000. Appendix 4 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 43 Annex 16. Official Letter No. 285-2000-URH from the Chief of the Human Resources Unit of the Human Rights Ombudsman, dated June 26, 2000. Appendix 4 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 44 Annex 17. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated May 22, 2000. Appendix 9 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 45 Annex 17. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated May 22, 2000. Appendix 9 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 46 Annex 17. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated May 22, 2000. Appendix 9 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 47 Annex 17. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated May 22, 2000. Appendix 9 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 48 Annex 17. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated May 22, 2000. Appendix 9 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 49 Annex 16. Article 80 of the Personnel Rules of the Ombudsman's Office: “Procedure for motions for review. The Human Rights Ombudsmen must settle the appeal for a review within 10 business days of its filing; if the appeal is declared to be groundless or is not settled within the prescribed time, the affected party may appeal to the divisions of the Labor and Social Security Courts within the following five business days. The appeals procedure shall be that established in the Labor Code.” 50 Annex 17. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated May 22, 2000. Appendix 9 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 51 Annex 18. Decision of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated June 26, 2000. Appendix 10 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 10