57. On July 8, 1999, the Constitutional Court dismissed the motion for appeal for amparo. Regarding this, it argued that: (…) Of the two positions set forth in the instant case, that of the appellant and that of the authority being appealed, it is that of the latter that the Court finds aligned with the law, because neither Decree 71-86 cited above nor the Labor Code establish, for the accessory matter of stating that a strike is unlawful, a specific procedure in the central collective dispute, because of which it is the mandatory part of the Law on the Judiciary that the actions and decisions taken in this proceeding must be subject to, unless some of them are governed by special laws. In the role challenging the decision involved in the background to the present action, which accepted the proceeding of the strike’s unlawfulness, attention must be paid to what is set forth in the last paragraph of Article 140 quoted above, which expressly admits no appeal against final rulings handed down by courts comprising several judges (tribunales colegiados) by means of that proceeding (…). 31 5. Dismissals by the Supreme Court of Justice and subsequent motions of appeal 58. On September 1, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice proceeded to dismiss the 404 employees who had participated in the strike. 32 The Court indicated that, in order to take this decision, it took into account the following aspects: a) The attitude adopted by the employees who went on strike prevented the population from exercising the right and access to justice as guaranteed by the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, because it involved bringing the public services of the administration of justice to a standstill for twenty days (…) b) The harm to justice because of the above-mentioned unlawful strike was a blow to the rule of law. c) The employees who participated in the unlawful strike put particular interests above public ones, and the main party impacted was the people of Guatemala (…) d) (…) the measures, also de facto, that accompanied the strike and which would have merited special punishment on their own, such as: i) Taking court proceeding documents and using them as barricades to prevent access to judges, magistrates, and users, as well as placing the proceeding documents in the elevators of the Building of the Courts. ii) Attempting to open the door of the Plenary Chamber where this Supreme Court of Justice was holding its session. iii) Knocking on the above-mentioned door. iv) Disrupting this Court’s sessions, using loudspeakers and insulting authorities. v) Resorting to threats against employees who wished to continue providing their services. 33 59. Subsequently, 72 members of the Union filed motions for reconsideration as it was understood that the lists were not adequately worked through. In particular, the petitioners reported that 20 employees submitted evidence proving that they worked during the time of the strike. The Commission has information that 18 Union members 34 submitted evidence indicating they worked during the time of the strike. 35 60. On September 6, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice enlarged and corrected the ruling of September 1 of the same year. On the basis of this ruling, the Supreme Court of Justice noted that certain Union members who had been included on the list of striking employees had been mistakenly identified individually, whether because of an error made about the job they held or because of the court in which they worked. Likewise, the Court included names of more persons who participated in the strike. In particular, it indicated the following: A) that Gloria Marina Moya Ruiz, Oliverio Edmundo Roldan Castañeda, and Sergio Alfredo Tobías Vazquez do not work in the Justice of the Peace Court of the municipality of Acatenango in the department of Chimaltenango, but rather in the Justice of the Peace Court of the municipality of Patzicia in the same department (…) 31 Annex 14. July 8, 1999 Ruling on the Constitutional Appeal by the Constitutional Court. Annex 16 to the updated initial petition of November 28, 2000. 32 Annex 13. Judgment of the CSJ implementing the dismissals. Annex 15 to the updated initial petition of November 28, 2000. 33 Annex 13. Judgment of the CSJ implementing the dismissals. Annex 15 to the updated initial petition of November 28, 2000. 34Ajquejay Xec Rafael, Arias Carlos Enrique, Arriola Conde Luis René, Caxaj Turnil Mario Juan Humberto, Ejacalon Majzul Irrael, Illescas García de Suarez Rosa Nelly, Leonardo Carlos Antonio. Leonardo Oscar Moisés, López Arias, Edgar Arturo, López Girón Sandra Nineth, Méndez Rodas Rolando Efraín, Morales Matías Edgar Romeo, Moya Ruiz Gloria Marina, Ortiz Domínguez, Edna Araceli, Portillo Dora Carolina, Quevedo Quezada De Marroquín Evelin Marleny, Reyes Martínez María Victoria, and Soto Godoy Sergio Eduardo. 35 Annex 15. Files and Resources of the Petitioners. Annex 8A to the observations on the merits of March 10, 2008 from the petitioners. 9