5 10 State of Honduras, in general, and the CSJ, in particular, have only complied with the law . The State argues that the conduct of the alleged victims was carried out in their condition of judges and not as citizens, all of which is explicitly prohibited by the law. Moreover, the State alleges that the petitioners avoid the legal analysis of what they called a “coup d’état”; as a result, the State rejects the fact account presented by the petitioners in that respect. The State expresses that there was a breach of the constitutional order, but that it was only caused by the unconstitutional conduct of then President Zelaya Rosales. Notwithstanding, the State points out that judges neither are nor can be political activists, members of political parties or participants in politics through other means, as their duty according to the Constitution is to administer justice with impartiality and independence. 15. In that context, it indicates that the Dirección de Administración de Personal de la Carrera Judicial (Direction of Administration of Personnel of the Judicial Career) started different inquiry and disciplinary proceedings for the actions of the alleged victims. The State further indicates that said actions 11 were duly accredited and accepted by the alleged victims in their defense hearings. 16. The State affirms that the legal disciplinary framework for employees of the Judicial Branch is respectful of the standards of the rule of law, as the proceeding and the organs that participate have their origin in the Constitution and the law (Ley de Organización y Atribuciones de los Tribunales, 12 Ley de la Carrera Judicial , Reglamento de la Ley de la Carrera Judicial, Reglamento Interior de la CSJ, Reglamento Interno del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial and Código de Ética para Funcionarios y Empleados Judiciales, among others). In particular, the State alleges that a fair trial does not ensure a positive solution for the claim of a plaintiff, but it should guarantee a due process. It also indicates that through the disciplinary proceeding –that is not concluded-, the alleged victims had the opportunity to exercise their defense presenting arguments and evidence in the aforementioned hearings; and that they had the opportunity to appeal before the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) the decision of dismissal. It informs that the alleged victims asked the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) to be reinstated in their positions or, otherwise, to declare the prescription of the action and the archive of the case. 17. The State also alleges that the petitioners have not exhausted all remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction before filing their claim with the IACHR. The State affirms that the petition was lodged on July 6, 2010. It also indicates that the Dirección de Administración de Personal de la Carrera Judicial (Direction of Administration of Personnel of the Judicial Career) issued its resolution of admissibility on August 31, 2010, but that the decision on the merits is pending. 18. The State alleges that the petitioners are simultaneously litigating in the domestic and international level, which violates the principles of stoppel, good faith and juridical certainty. 19. Although the State affirms that the final decisions of the CSJ are not subject to appeal as there is no higher tribunal at the domestic level, it points out that the alleged victims could have filed an amparo before the Constitutional Chamber of the CSJ to challenge the hypothetical violations in the 13 disciplinary proceeding . It argues that an amparo is the suitable and adequate remedy that provides victims the right to petition for the restitution in the “possession of the rights and guarantees set forth in 10 Regarding the allegations of the petitioners that the Supreme Court invited judicial staff to participate in a manifestation in favor of the coup d’état, the State indicated that the judicial employee that sent the invitation was submitted to an administrative investigation. 11 They add that the Supreme Court of Justice elected for the 2009-2016 term, to date has issued 25 removal agreements against judges alleging breach and serious violation of their duties. 12 The State indicates that in order to administrate the Judicial Career, the law creates three organs: 1) the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council), 2) the Dirección de Administración de Personal (Direction of Administration of Personnel), and 3) the Comisión de Selección de Personal (Personnel Recruitment Commission). It adds that the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) is a dependant organ of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Council aids the Supreme Court of Justice with matters related to the administration of personnel and conflict resolution when the law and its regulation are applied. 13 The State alleges that it is possible to file an amparo against the resolutions of the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council), despite the normative of Article 31 of the Internal Regulations of the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial, in consideration of Article 320 of the Constitution.