Rights declared admissible Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule: Timeliness of the petition: V. Articles 5 (Humane Treatment), 8 (Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), 23 (Participation in Government), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 26 (Progressive Development) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof Yes, under the terms of Section VI Yes, under the terms of Section VI ALLEGED FACTS 1. The petitioners claim that José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma (hereinafter “the alleged victims”) were arbitrarily and wrongfully removed from office as Justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in political retaliation from the Honduran National Congress. 2. They indicate that the National Congress passed the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption, by Decree No. 89-2012, effective as of May 25, 2012. They claim that many citizens appealed this law through a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Chamber, since these believed that it infringed the Honduran Constitution. They submit that after the legal proceedings were done, on November 27, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber voted on the constitutional complaint, and that said draft legislation did not get the unanimous vote needed for its passing. They explain that the four alleged victims voted to declare the unconstitutionality of said law, and that only one judge voted to declare its constitutionality. Therefore, based on the established procedure, the complaint was submitted to the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice for its decision. 3. They allege that in retaliation for the abovementioned events, on December 10, 2012 the Congress appointed a Committee, made up of representatives of the ruling party with the mandate to investigate the administrative conduct of the Judiciary. In the evening of December 11, 2012 said Committee presented its report to the Congress, establishing that there had been administrative irregularities in the processing of the constitutional complaint filed against the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption. They claim that the report indicated that the Constitutional Chamber’s resolution on said law was in disagreement with the security policy adopted by the Executive and Legislative Branches, and that this seriously harmed the State. They remark that this congressional session was held with the building surrounded by members of the Army. They claim that at four in the morning of December 12, 2012 the Congress voted in favor of dismissing four of the five magistrates of the Constitutional Chamber (those who voted for the unconstitutionality of the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption), and appointed four replacements. 4. They argue that the alleged victims were unable to defend their rights, and that their dismissal was wrongful, since the Congress was not entitled to do so and there were no legal procedures enabling the prosecution of the highest authorities of the Supreme Court of Justice. They allege that under the Honduran legal system the purported administrative irregularities were not a legal cause for the removal of judges. They indicate that it was not the dismissed magistrates but the President of the Supreme Court of Justice that had administrative functions, by order of the Congress itself, through Decrees No. 282-2010 and 5-2011. They add that in an act of obedience and submission, the Supreme Court’s President swore in the new magistrates the morning of December 12, 2012, committing thus a political blow to the judicial institutions. 5. They claim that given that there were no legal procedures to remove magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice, the investigation undertaken by the Representatives Committee and the subsequent motion filed by the Congress were illegal and arbitrary mechanisms used as a legal cause for dismissing the alleged victims. They affirm that said dismissal was in retaliation for proceedings inherent to the alleged 2