events of September 18. On October 6, 2003, the magistrates are summoned as defendants by the Public Prosecutor’s Office in connection with the alleged irregularities that occurred when the original file was removed from the First Court. On October 8, 2003, the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Reconstruction suspended magistrates Apitz and Rocha Contreras and initiated an investigation into the events of September 18, 2003. 11. Furthermore, by judgment of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 11, 2003, the Inspector General of Courts initiated disciplinary proceedings against the magistrates of the First Court, which ended on October 7, 2003 with magistrates Ana Maria Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, Luisa Estrella Morales and Evelyn Marrero Ortiz being accused of having committed serious, inexcusable judicial errors. The Inspector General of Courts based his arguments on Article 40(4) of the Law on Careers in the Judiciary, an ordered their dismissal as judges. The petitioners indicated that the order for dismissal was a violation of the Law on Careers in the Judiciary as Article 40(4) establishes that dismissal must be requested and decided by the respective Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in this case, the Political-Administrative Chamber. 12. They state that on October 30, 2003, the Commission on Judicial System Operations and Reconstruction 5 (hereinafter the “Operations Commission”) dismissed the magistrates, except for Judge Evelyn Marrero Ortiz, who had retired on March 28, 2003. They also reported that on December 11, 2003, the same Operations Commission admitted an appeal for review filed by Judge Ana Maria Estella Morales, revoking the order for her dismissal and granting her retirement benefits. The petitioners argue that the two judges who received these benefits had cast dissenting votes in all the cases involving the government in which the First Court had ruled against the interests of the government. 13. On November 13, 2003, the petitioners lodged a hierarchical appeal against the dismissal order with the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The petitioners report that there was an unwarranted delay; due to the fact that their appeal was not decided within the time limits set by law. 6 On November 27, the petitioners filed a joint appeal for annulment and for precautionary measures of constitutional amparo with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which had not been decided on the date of filing this complaint with the IACHR. 14. Regarding their arguments in law, the petitioners claim that their guarantees and judicial protection under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention were violated because, they contend, the circumstances that led to their dismissal were due to the fact that the decisions they took as judges of the First Court were contrary to the interests of the executive and legislative branches. They also state that the agency that declared their suspension had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary decisions as it was not an independent body. They argued that in the process they were not allowed a hearing in an independent and impartial court. The petitioners claim that the Inspectorate General of Courts had no jurisdiction to undertake administrative proceedings declaring the action of the magistrates as “a disciplinary matter of unlawful conduct” [ilícito disciplinario]. They argued that such a designation also violated the principle of presumption of innocence since there had been no previous disciplinary proceedings. They declared that the Inspectorate acted outside its functions since the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had never declared that the magistrates should be removed from office. Finally, they indicated that the General Commission on Operations and Restructuring of the Courts exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing them, since that action was a function of the same authority that had appointed them, namely the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice. 5 The Commission on Judicial System Operations and Reconstruction was created by Article 28 of the Public Authorities Transitional Regime, published in the Official Gazette Nº 39.920 of March 28, 2000. 6 Article 91 of the Organic Law on Administrative Procedure establishes: The appeal for reconsideration of a decision made by the Minister himself and the hierarchical appeal shall be decided within 90 days of filing. 3