victims’ judicial office, which they undertook within the boundaries of their legal and constitutional powers. In addition, they indicate that the then President of the Congress justified the illegal actions of the Congress, declaring that it had been found that the Justices of the Constitutional Chamber conspired against decisions of the Congress. 6. They indicate that, in view of this, the alleged victims lodged a constitutional appeal on December 12, 2012, including objections to the then newly-appointed magistrates and the magistrate that was not removed from office, in the belief that these would have a direct interest on the case if they happened to hear it. Moreover, the "Bar of Anti-Corruption Lawyers” civil organization (Barra de Abogados Hondureños Anticorrupción) presented on the same date another constitutional appeal that was joined with that filed by the alleged victims, for a joint resolution. They claim that the new Constitutional Chamber refrained from hearing the case, and that the Supreme Court’s President then proceeded to appoint a Second Special Chamber, made up of other Magistrates of the Supreme Court. They submit that the new Chamber also refrained from hearing the case, and that as a result, the Supreme Court’s President created a Third Special Chamber. 7. They report that on January 29, 2013 the Special Chamber, by a majority of votes (four to one) plainly refused to grant constitutional protection, arguing that the actions of the Congress were beyond this Chamber’s jurisdiction. It established that deputies of the Congress have only legislative functions, and that they are not state officials, whose actions can be the object of constitutional appeals. The petitioners indicate that the provisions of the Law on Constitutional Justice establish that when the jurisdictional body alleges lack of competence to hear a constitutional appeal, the case must be transmitted to the competent body within the following 24 hours. They claim that the Special Chamber, however, refrained from transmitting the case file to other authorities. They submit that the arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution violated the alleged victims’ right of access to justice. 8. They claim that in view of the fact that the abovementioned judgment was not unanimous, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice analyzed the constitutional appeal filed by the alleged victims, and that on February 6, 2013 it ruled to dismiss it (by 13 votes in favor and 2 votes against), arguing that it was not entitled to hear or resolve it. The petitioners indicate that the decision simply reiterated the arguments of the judgment of January 29, 2013. They submit that this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies, the distorted interpretation of basic rights and the lack of judicial independence of the Supreme Court of Justice. 9. The petitioners claim that they filed an appeal for review against that decision, but that the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed it (again by 13 votes in favor and 2 votes against) on February 18, 2013 on the grounds that judgments, once signed, cannot be changed. They allege that this confirmed the fact that domestic remedies are merely useless and ineffective formalities, for they led to the full denial of justice to the alleged victims. They also indicate that having been illegally and wrongfully dismissed, the alleged victims have been deprived of their right to remain in office and the opportunity of being reelected, which violated thus their right to work. 10. They allege that since the four justices were removed, the Constitutional Chamber is made up of illegally appointed replacements. They indicate that this demonstrates the Judiciary’s submission to the Legislative and Executive Branches. Moreover, they claim that the alleged victims, since their dismissal, are constantly threatened and harassed by state agents and unidentified persons. They submit that these incidents have been reported to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Human Rights in Honduras and the National Committee of Relatives of the Disappeared in Honduras, but that state authorities have failed to take actions or measures to investigate or afford protection. Furthermore, they claim that both the President of the Republic and the President and deputies of the Congress have lodged frivolous and malicious accusations against the alleged victims, which harm the dignity and honor of the alleged victims themselves and their families. 11. For its part, the State argues that the procedure adopted by the Congress ensured the alleged victims’ right of due process. It claims that on December 10, 2012 the Congress created a special Committee that investigated the administrative conduct of the justices of the Supreme Court, particularly of those part of the Constitutional Chamber. It points out that the investigation concerned “their administrative conduct in 3