3 circumstances surrounding the coup d’état. They indicate that in its edition of August 28, 2009, the journal Tiempo published a note about the conference with the title No Fue Una Sucesión Constitucional (It was not a Constitutional Succession) authored by judge Barrios Maldonado.  Magistrate Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza: On June 30, 2009, Tirza Flores, magistrate of the Corte de Apelaciones de San Pedro Sula (Court of Appeals of San Pedro Sula), acting in her condition of citizen, allegedly filed an amparo before the Sala Constitucional (Constitutional Chamber) of the CSJ seeking protection of President Manuel Zelaya Rosales, who has been “expelled from Honduran territory” in the context of the coup d’état. They indicate that the amparo was accumulated with other similar remedies filed by other judges, prosecutors and human rights defenders. They also allege that the admissibility resolution of the amparo did not indicate that the magistrate had committed any kind of irregularity. They further state that on October 16, 2009, the Sala Constitucional denied the magistrate her right to formalize the amparo as its filing was considered an act explicitly prohibited by the Ley de Tribunales (Law of Tribunals). They allege that decision constituted a discriminatory treatment and further indicated that it contravened the Ley de Justicia Constitucional (Constitutional Justice Law). They also state that on June 30, 2009, the magistrate filed a petition against high public officials –members of the Armed Forces and congressmen- which prepared and sanctioned the decree that removed José Manuel Zelaya Rosales as Constitutional President of the Republic of Honduras. 8. They allege that between August and September 2009, the Inspectoría de Juzgados y Tribunales (Inspectory of Tribunals) started an investigation against the alleged victims; that between October and November 2009, the Dirección de Administración de Personal (Office of Personnel Administration) notified them of the beginning of a disciplinary proceeding; and that between December 2009 and January 2010, the alleged victims appeared before the Dirección de Administración de Personal (Office of Personnel Administration) to testify and to present evidence, which was examined in April 2010. They indicate that on May 5, 2010, the Plenary of the CSJ delivered a ruling that ordered their dismissal. The decision was ratified on May 12, 2010. They also state that on May 21, 2010, the alleged victims brought a reconsideration remedy before the Plenary of the CSJ that was refused, and therefore 5 the aforementioned sanction was ratified. 9. Regarding the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioners indicate that the alleged victims did not participate in the phase of preliminary inquiry; that when the alleged victims were notified of the proceeding, they were not informed of the charges, nor they had access to the file or evidence brought; that they were not allowed to interrogate the witnesses during the preliminary inquiry; and that only on June 30, 2010, they got a copy of the minute of the CSJ session of May 5, 2010. They added that the audiencias de descargos y evacuación de la prueba (hearings) took place before an administrative official and that neither the results from those meetings nor the evaluation of the evidence have been made public. 10. The petitioners state that in accordance with the Ley de Carrera Judicial (Law of Judicial Career) and its Regulation, on June 30, 2010, the alleged victims appeared before the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) to file remedies against their dismissals, but to date, the recourses have not been determined on the merits. Moreover, the petitioners allege that only magistrate Flores Lanza and judge López Lone have been summoned for their hearings as it is mandated for this phase of the proceeding. They also indicate that the hearing for magistrate Flores Lanza was suspended; 6 and that the call for the hearing of judge López Lone was cancelled. In respect to the other judges, the 5 The petitioners allege that according to the resolutions, the dismissals will take effect “once the substitute judge takes office.” They allege that in the case of magistrate Flores Lanza and judge López Lone substitute judges have been appointed so the dismissals were effective on July 1, 2010. In addition, on September 21, 2010, judge Luis Alonso Chévéz de la Rocha was informed of the appointment of his substitute, so his dismissal will be effective once the new judge takes oath before the Corte de Apelaciones de San Pedro Sula (Court of Appeals of San Pero Sula). 6 The petitioners inform that during the hearing, the members of the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) were absent. They add that judge Guillermo López Lone requested this circumstance to be included in the minute. They also indicate that the legal advisor of the Council informed the alleged victim that the hearing will be annulled. Notwithstanding, the petitioners affirm there is no such resolution in the file.