B) (…) to include other employees who had participated in the above-mentioned unlawful action [the strike] because it was proven on the basis of the respective documentation, thus also including: Glenda Nineth Figueroa Caceres de Garcia, Officer III, Civil Court/Eco. Coac. Such; Edgard Rolando Lopez, Officer III, Civil Court/Eco. Coac. Chiq; Juan Manuel Hernandez Landaverde, Srio, Instance I, Court of Sentencing Quet; Juan Jose Psquiy Coyoy, Officer III, Court of Sentencing Quet; Edwin Osberto Granados Loarca, Officer III, Court of Sentencing Quet. C) Because it was noted that the employee Mario Rene Calderón Salazar was dismissed as Clerk III of the Archive of Protocols, in the respective ruling of said Presidency and that it was proven that he is now discharging his duties as Clerk II in the Justice of the Peace Court of Magdalena Milpas Altas in the department Sacatepéquez he must be dismissed from his job in the latter Court of Justice. 36 61. On September 25, 1999, the petitioners filed a motion for amparo with the Constitutional Court. In the context of this remedy, they argued that: B) Article 12 of the Political Constitution of the Republic is violated by the magistrates comprising the Supreme Court of Justice because this article establishes constitutional guarantees of due process of law and the right of defense, and because this Court issued the ruling of September 1 of the present year ordering the dismissal of 508 employees of the Judiciary, including among them the leaders of the Union of this body, without previously giving them a hearing as provided for in Article 22 of the Collective Working Conditions Agreement in the case of the former, and failing to abide by the principle of union job irremovability as set forth in Article 12 of that instrument on collective formation in the case of the latter. 37 62. On February 29, 2000, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal for amparo that was filed. The Court determined that: (…) On the basis of the examination of the background, it was established that the authority being challenged took the decision of dismissing several of its employees, including members of the Executive Committee of the Workers Union of that body, because, as the appointing authority it was required to implement what had been decided by the Labor Chamber which heard the case by virtue of which it was declared that the action being promoted by the Union was unlawful. Because that ruling was a final ruling and, on that basis, had fully established the cause for dismissal, it was unnecessary to file preliminary proceedings of dismissal or a regular trial to determine the contracts according to the case, because the power to terminate labor relationships had already been granted by the competent judicial authority, since it had ruled that the strike was unlawful and as a result concluded that the consequence that pertained to that action was the dismissal of the striking employees, with the only limitation that it should be previously administratively proven that they had gone on strike and because its course of action is to abide by the provisions of the final court ruling, the present Court deems that it has respected court proceedings and is not violating the constitution at all. Under other circumstances, the personal situation of the members of the Union’s Executive Committee and its branches would have merited a different treatment; nevertheless, because in this case it came from a union action whose unlawfulness was fully ruled upon, the legal rights of organized labor as provided for in Article 223, subparagraph d) of the Labor Code are not applicable (…). 38 63. The IACHR takes note that a magistrate issued a dissenting vote arguing that “the way in which they were dismissed violates due process of law for dismissing an employee of the Judiciary as established in Article 22 of the Collective Working Conditions Agreement. (…) [T]he appointing authority could well have made the employee the object of a subsequent dismissal in the case referred to for the purpose of observing due process of law by conducting the hearing it would have granted whereby it could have removed said cause by demonstrating his or her possible non-participation in the strike, thus avoiding unfair dismissals.” 39 36 Annex 16. Correction of mistakes in the dismissal order. Annex 8A to the observations on the merits of March 10, 2008 from the petitioners. 37 Annex 17. Motion for Constitutional Appeal filed with the Constitutional Court. Annex 13 to the brief of November 22, 2000 from the petitioners. 38 Annex 18, February 29, 2000 Ruling of the Constitutional Court. Annex 18 to the updated initial petition of November 28, 2000. 39 Annex 19. Dissenting vote of Justice Amado Gonzales Benitez. Annex 8 to the brief of October 12, 2007 from the petitioners. 10