with the building surrounded by members of the armed forces. They state that at 4 a.m. on December 12, 2012, the Congress voted in favor of dismissing four of the five justices of the Constitutional Chamber (those who voted that the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption was unconstitutional) and elected four replacements. 6. The petitioners argue that the alleged victims were unable to defend their rights and that their removal from office was illegal, as the Congress did not have the authority to do so and there were no legal procedures in place for prosecuting the highest authorities of the Supreme Court. They allege that under the Honduran legal system, the purported administrative irregularities were not a legal cause for the justices’ removal. They indicate that it was not the dismissed justices but the President of the Supreme Court who had administrative functions, by order of the Congress itself, through Decrees 282-2010 and 5-2011. They add that in an act of acquiescence and submission, the President of the Supreme Court swore in the new justices on the morning of December 12, 2012, thus implementing a “political coup of the judicial institution”. 7. The petitioners claim that since there were no legal procedures in place to remove Supreme Court justices, the investigation undertaken by the Committee of Deputies and the subsequent motion filed by the Congress were illegal and arbitrary mechanisms used as legal grounds for dismissing the alleged victims. They state that their removal came in retaliation for actions that were inherent to the alleged victims’ judicial office, which they carried out within the boundaries of their constitutional and legal powers. In addition, they indicate that the then-President of the Congress justified the legislative branch’s illegal actions, declaring that it had been found that the justices of the Constitutional Chamber had conspired against decisions of the Congress. 8. The petitioners indicate that in response to this situation, the alleged victims lodged an appeal for protection of constitutional rights (recurso de amparo) on December 12, 2012, including objections to the four newly appointed justices and the justice who was not removed from office, in the belief that these individuals would have a direct interest in the case if it were to come before them. Moreover, on that same date, a civil organization called the “Bar of Anti-Corruption Lawyers” (Barra de Abogados Hondureños Anticorrupción) filed another amparo appeal, which was joined with the first appeal filed by the alleged victims, to be resolved jointly. The petitioners indicate that the newly constituted Constitutional Chamber declined to hear the case and that the President of the Supreme Court then proceeded to set up a Second Special Chamber made up of other Supreme Court justices. They explain that the new Special Chamber also declined to hear the case and that as a result, the President of the Supreme Court created a Third Special Chamber. 9. The petitioners indicate that on January 29, 2013, the Special Chamber, by a majority of votes (four to one) refused from the outset to grant constitutional protection, arguing that the actions of the Congress were beyond this Chamber’s jurisdiction. It found that congressional deputies have only legislative functions and that they do not fall under the category of public officials, whose actions can be subject to constitutional appeals. The petitioners indicate that provisions of the Law on Constitutional Justice establish that when the jurisdictional body declares that it lacks competence to hear a constitutional appeal, it must forward the case to the competent officer within the following 24 hours. They maintain, however, that the Special Chamber refrained from sending the case file to any other authority. They submit that the arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution violated the alleged victims’ right of access to justice. 10. The petitioners say that since the aforementioned judgment was not unanimous, the Plenary of the Supreme Court analyzed the amparo appeal filed by the alleged victims, and that on February 6, 2013, it ruled to dismiss it (by 13 votes in favor and 2 votes against), arguing that it lacked jurisdiction to hear or decide it. The petitioners indicate that the ruling simply reiterated the arguments of the judgment of January 29, 2013. They submit that this demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the domestic remedies, the distorted interpretation of basic rights, and the lack of judicial independence of the Supreme Court of Justice. 11. The petitioners state that they filed an appeal for review of that decision (recurso de reposición) but that on February 18, 2013, the Plenary of the Supreme Court dismissed it (again by 13 votes in favor and 2 against), on the grounds that judgments, once signed, cannot be changed. They argue that this confirmed that the domestic remedies are merely useless and ineffective formalities, as they led to the complete denial of justice to the alleged victims. They also maintain that having been illegally and arbitrarily dismissed, the alleged 2