19. As for the right to a fair trial, they alleged that the guarantees of independence and impartiality were
breached because the CSJ acted as both judge and jury, as it was one of the parties to the dispute; nevertheless
it decided ruled on certain motions filed in connection with the dispute. It added that, in addition, the CSJ acted
arbitrarily when drafting the lists of employees who participated in the strike, without adequately
differentiating those who did not participate in the strike from those who did participate.
20. In addition, they argued that these rights were breached because the state retroactively applied Decree 3596 which amended Article 4 of the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations for State Employees, including
the administration of justice and related institutions into the definition of essential public services. They
indicated that the decree was published on May 27, 1996, and it was enforced with respect to the strike starting
on March 19 and ending on April 2 of that same year.
21. They argued that the duty of stating reasons was violated because 72 employees filed appeals for
reconsideration in response to their dismissal, and 14 other employees filed other motions such as regular
labor hearings for reinstatement or protection and all were dismissed without any adequate indication of the
reasons for the refusal.
22. They pointed out that the state violated the right to judicial protection when it failed to provide a rapid
and effective remedy for protecting their rights in an independent and impartial court.
23. They stated that the state violated their rights to freedom of association and equality before the law.
They also indicated, regarding this, that the state violated the right to job irremovability enjoyed by the
members of the Union’s Executive Committee and Advisory Board. They added that the principle of equality
was violated because the Union’s leaders were discriminated against as none of them were rehired and union
members who were rehired were stigmatized.
B. State
24. The state of Guatemala argued that none of the rights referred to by the petitioners were violated and that
the domestic court rulings adhered to the principles of the National Constitution and the American Convention.
25. With respect to a fair trial, specifically, regarding the allegation relative to the absence of independence
and impartiality of the Supreme Court of Justice, it indicated that it did not act as judge and jury. Regarding this,
it stated that the Supreme Court of Justice judges themselves recused themselves from hearing the proceedings,
pursuant to national law. It added that the judges of the CSJ only reviewed the dispute as representatives of the
employer-state when ruling on and implementing, on September 1, 1999, the dismissals that had been
authorized on May 13, 1996 by an impartial, independent, and competent court, namely, the First Chamber of
the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court.
26. In connection with the allegation made by the petitioners for the need to establish another court to hear
the dispute between the Union’s workers and the Judiciary, the state argued that creating a special court would
violate the principle of equality for all judicial proceedings. It pointed out that the National Constitution
establishes that all regular courts shall hear all disputes under private law to which the state, the municipality,
or any other decentralized or autonomous entity are a party.
27. It added that it was the Constitutional Court that was in charge of reviewing human rights violations
submitted by the petitioners and that said body is completely separate from the Judiciary. It finally stated that,
regarding the lawfulness of the dismissals, it is the Constitutional Court, and not the Supreme Court of Justice,
that takes the final decision.
28. Furthermore, regarding judicial protection, it indicated that the petitioners had the opportunity to take
advantage of all the recourses available under domestic law, which were ruled upon by a competent court.
3