ordered the suspension of the civil servant In the case of the latter, the appointing authority must immediately and definitively abide by the decision. Article 83. Reinstatement. The reinstatement of a civil servant gives rise to a new employment relationship that leaves intact all previously acquired vested rights not covered in accordance with this law, except those withdrawn under the causes contained in Article 76 [justified dismissal].32 44. On May 29, 2000, the National Civil Service Office wrote to Mrs. Maldonado informing her that this organ and the National Civil Service Board lacked administrative jurisdiction “to consider matters pertaining to requests concerning reinstatement or entitlement payments of employees.” 33 It added that this was because it was not the civil service law that was applied but the “state departments’ or institutions’ own provisions.”34 2.2. Petition for review to the Human Rights Ombudsman 45. On June 2, 2000, Mrs. Maldonado presented a petition for review to the Human Rights Ombudsman under Article 80 of the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations, seeking the annulment of dismissal decision No. 81-2000.35 That provision reads as follows: Article 80. 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. 36 46. In first place, Mrs. Maldonado argued that the dismissal decision was devoid of any legal validity as it had not been signed by the Human Rights Ombudsman or the Assistant Ombudsman. 37 Second, she claimed that the accusations against her were inaccurate since the notarized document referred to was not falsified.38 Mrs. Maldonado presented a photocopy of the notarized document, arguing that it contained all three signatures and, therefore, her siblings' submissions would be disproved. 39 47. On June 16, 2000, the chief of the Human Resources Unit of the Human Rights Ombudsman declared the petition for review large by the alleged victim to be without merit. 40 He argued that dismissal 32 Annex 14. Civil Service Law. Free http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/mesicic2_gtm_ley_servicio_civil.pdf translation. Available in Spanish at: 33 Annex 15. Interlocutory decision No. 2000-DJ-1680, National Civil Service Office, May 29, 2000. Appendix 8 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 34 Annex 15. Interlocutory decision No. 2000-DJ-1680, National Civil Service Office, May 29, 2000. Appendix 8 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 35 Annex 1. Letter to the Human Rights Ombudsman from Olga Maldonado Ordóñez, dated June 2, 2000. Appendix 2 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 36 Annex 6. Human Rights Ombudsman's Personnel http://www.pdh.org.gt/accesinfo/images/downloads/2012/reglamento_de_personal.pdf Regulations. Available at: 37 Annex 1. Letter to the Human Rights Ombudsman from Olga Maldonado Ordóñez, dated June 2, 2000. Appendix 2 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 38 Annex 1. Letter to the Human Rights Ombudsman from Olga Maldonado Ordóñez, dated June 2, 2000. Appendix 2 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 39 Annex 1. Letter to the Human Rights Ombudsman from Olga Maldonado Ordóñez, dated June 2, 2000. Appendix 2 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 40 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. 9