addition, on the nature of the service of administering justice, in connection with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 116 of the Political Constitution of the Republic. 23 3. Declaring the strike’s illegitimacy 49. On April 23, 1996, the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation filed preliminary proceedings with the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court for the purpose of securing a declaration of illegitimacy and unlawfulness of the strike produced by the STOJ. 24 50. On May 13, 1996, the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court ruled that the preliminary proceedings pending with the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation were admissible and, as a result, it determined that the strike action supported by the members of the Union was illegitimate and notified that the Supreme Court of Justice had 20 days to determine who had participated in the strike and implement the dismissals. 25 That Chamber determined that: VI. In the instant case, the collective work stoppage by part of a given group of Judiciary employees is a public fact that is widely known because it was disseminated by all the media and confirmed personally by the court. It led to the interruption of the public service of the administration of justice (…) without having obtained for that purpose from the present court in charge of processing the collective dispute, a prior ruling on the characterization of the strike action that the Judiciary Workers Union was attempting to carry out (…) (…) In the case at hand, it merely falls to this court, under the aforesaid provision, to set a period of twenty days for the employer, since the power to terminate labor contracts is the employer’s, with respect to workers who effectively took strike action, and that is a situation that must be established administratively and exactly by working through the lists that were submitted as evidence, since an examination thereof indicates certain imprecision that could negatively affect the rights of employees who did not suspend work and are included on the list. THEREFORE: The present chamber, on the grounds of the above-mentioned considerations and laws: I. DECLARES THAT THE DE FACTO STRIKE ACTION IS UNLAWFUL as supported by groups of Judiciary employees from the nineteenth of March to the seventh of April of the present year and as a result, that the case pending in the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation against the Judiciary Workers Union is ADMISSIBLE. 26 4. Remedies to challenge the ruling of the strike’s unlawfulness 51. On May 23, 1996, the Workers Union filed a motion for amparo against the May 13, 1996 judgment of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court where the workers’ strike was ruled unlawful. 27 52. On February 18, 1997, the Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Trials of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the motion for amparo was inadmissible, on the basis of the following reasoning: Reading the transcribed arguments shows that they are confusing for lack of clarity and because of that, the appeal being filed cannot succeed for the following reasons: a) the appellant states that, because the ruling of May 13, 1996 violated the right guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. Nevertheless, it failed to indicate clearly and precisely what said violations consisted of (…) b) The appellant argues that the right to constitutional defense and what is required in Article 15 of the Law on the Judiciary was violated because the magistrates comprising the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court are liable for having delayed the administration of justice (…). Regarding this, the present Chamber confirms that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence that the magistrates of the above-mentioned Annex 9. April 2, 1996 ruling of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ). Annex 6 to the brief of February 1, 2002 from the petitioners. 24 Annex 5. Background to the strike. Annex 10 to the brief of March 10, 2008 from the petitioners. 25 Annex 10. May 13, 1996 Ruling of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court. Annex 7 to the brief of November 28, 2000 from the petitioners. 26 Annex 10. May 13, 1996 Ruling of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court. Annex 7 to the brief of November 28, 2000 from the petitioners. 27 As it appears in Annex 11. February 18, 1997 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Trials. Annex 8 to the admissibility brief of November 28, 2000 from the petitioners. 23 7