4 7 petitioners allege that they have not been summoned for their mandatory hearings. They also point out that even though the remedies have not been finally examined, two of the four dismissals are effective as new substitute judges have been already appointed, and a third judge will take oath soon. 11. Notwithstanding the recourse lodged before the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council), the petitioners argue that in the instant case it is applicable the exception set forth at Article 46.2(a) of the American Convention, as there were not due guarantees in the disciplinary proceeding against the alleged victims. They argue that the international community has already pointed out the lack of independence of the CSJ and its support for the de facto authorities; that the regulation of the disciplinary proceeding does not guarantee a fair tria l and that the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) is a dependant body of the CSJ. They indicate that its members are appointed by the CSJ and that two of its members are magistrates of the CSJ. In sum, they allege that there is no independence ensuring the effectiveness of the recourse and the application of judicial guarantees. 12. In respect to the State allegation regarding the lack of presentation of the remedy of amparo, they indicate that, 1) No ordinary or extraordinary remedies may be filed against final rulings 8 issued by the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) ; 2) The interested party must appeal the objected decision, which in the present case means lodging a remedy before the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council). However, the decisions of the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial 9 (Judicial Career Council) are not subject to appeal ; and 3) The remedy of amparo does not constitute an effective recourse since it would ultimately be heard by the Constitutional Chamber of the CSJ itself, the same organ that ordered the dismissal of the judges and the magistrate. Finally, they allege that there is no substitution proceeding if all members of the Chamber or the CSJ were recused. 13. In respect to the characterization of the alleged facts, the petitioners argue the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8, 13, 15, 16 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. They allege that the disciplinary proceeding lacks o f adequate regulation that may ensure a fair trial and the right of defense of judicial officials, and that the alleged victims were not guaranteed with the principles of the natural judge, independence and impartiality. In respect to the right to freedom of expression, they allege that the dismissals did not pursue a legitimate aim necessary in a democratic society. In respect to the right of association, they explain that as the alleged victims lost their condition of judges, they could not participate as members of the AJD anymore, and therefore, they were impeded to fulfill the objectives of the organization. Finally, the petitioners allege that the imposed sanctions violate the right of reunion as the State punished the alleged participation of public officials in pacific demonstrations that rejected the coup d’état and that supported the return to the constitutional order . In the public hearing that took place during the 141th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the IACHR, the petitioners alleged that their dismissals had caused emotional and monetary consequences in the personal a nd family levels. B. The State 14. The State alleges that the facts that motivated the dismissals of judges Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado and of magistrate Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, were not based on grounds of political persecution or harassment, as the 7 They add that two members of the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) and magistrates of the Supreme Court excused themselves from participating in the case, an issue that has not been resolved. They allege that the internal legislation does not consider a proceeding for the substitution of the magistrates, and therefore, they do not know how the Council will proceed with the aforementioned requests. 8 They quote Article 31 of the Reglamento Interno del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Internal Regulation of the Judicial Career Council). 9 Among others, they quote Article 46.3 of the Ley sobre Justicia Constitucional (Constitutional Justice Law), which establishes that an amparo is inadmissible when “the acts have been consented by the injured party. It will be understood that the acts have been consented by the injured party when a remedy is not lodged within the legal term, unless there is a proven case of impossibility to file said remedies.”