“President Porfirio Lobo yesterday reiterated his support of the decision by the National Congress which last week dismissed four of the five justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. “The head of the executive branch maintained that he is ‘totally in agreement’ with the dismissal of the justices, who were removed from office for declaring the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption to be unconstitutional. “Lobo said that if asked if he is in favor of the justices’ removal, he would raise his hand and even his feet because in his opinion, the members of the Constitutional Chamber do not deserve the trust of the Honduran people for opposing the police purge. “‘Who elects the President? The Honduran people. Who elects the deputies? The people. Who elects the Court? The deputies, and if the Court misbehaves, what does the Congress have to do? Cut them. What’s the problem?’ he said.” 36 42. Along the same lines, according to press reports, the then-President of the Congress, Juan Orlando Hernández, had told a media outlet that “he had discussed the issue of the justices’ removal with President Lobo and that they had come to a consensus that this would be best for the country, and that agreement had been reached with the President of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the appointment of the new justices.” 37 43. On January 4, 2013, the National Human Rights Commission presented a report on the State’s institutional crisis as a result of the replacement of the justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court and recommended rectification of their dismissal, which it considered illegal. It stated the following: “The four justices of the Supreme Court of Justice were dismissed without any legal cause having been established. “The action of replacement may be an incorrect way to do things, through an arbitrary, abusive, and flawed act performed by the National Congress of the Republic, ignoring the fact that Article 314 of the Constitution of the Republic establishes that justices of the CSJ [Supreme Court] may be removed only due to death, disability that impedes the exercise of office, substitution for legal reasons, or resignation. According to several legal dictionaries, legal cause is the ‘file or proceedings created to investigate an act and establish the appropriate resolution.’ And so far, I must and do understand that none of the four justices was subject to a legal cause that would provide grounds for his or her replacement for legal reasons as established in Article 314 of the Constitution. “The President of the Supreme Court’s acquiescence with what was approved by the National Congress in this case…is, ipso facto, an example of unconstitutional subordination which instead of resolving the crisis affecting the State’s institutional framework instead ends up complicating it, without resolving what has an institutional and constitutional solution, because all actions in jurisdictional matters from now on may have the taint of invalidity. If the note that is circulating, signed by the Secretary of the National Congress, is genuine, asking that the replacements please be incorporated, this is yet another reason to express our disagreement with the way that relations among the branches of the State are unfolding.” 38 44. On January 3, 2013, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in response to the situation involving the justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Honduras, issued a press release stressing the importance of the principle of separation and independence of the branches of government as an essential element of the rule of law. It indicated that the grounds for disciplinary sanctions imposed on a judge should never be the legal judgment developed in a decision. 39 45. On January 29, 2013, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers issued a press release expressing her concern about the dismissal of the alleged victims and stated: 36 Annex 27. El Heraldo, press report, “Totalmente de acuerdo con salida de magistrados,” Thursday, December 20, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 37 Annex 28. Press report, El Heraldo: Avilés concertó propuestas de nuevos magistrados, April 7, 2014, available at https://www.elheraldo.hn/alfrente/565674-209/aviles-concerto-propuestas-de-nuevos-magistrados. Annex to the petitioners’ brief of November 20, 2018. 38 Annex 29. National Human Rights Commission, Report on the institutional crisis of the State of Honduras as a result of the replacement of four of the five justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the judiciary based on the December 12, 2102, decision by the legislative branch, January 4, 2013. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 39 Annex 30. IACHR, Press Release No. 3/13, “In View of Situation in Honduras, IACHR Stresses Importance of Principle of Independence of the Judiciary,” January 3, 2013. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 10