victims have been deprived of their right to remain in office and of the opportunity to be reelected, which thus violated their right to work. 12. The petitioners point out that since the four justices were wrongfully removed, the Constitutional Chamber is made up of illegally appointed replacements. They indicate that this demonstrates the judiciary’s submission to the legislative and executive branches. Moreover, they claim that the alleged victims, since their dismissal, have been constantly threatened and harassed by police officers and unidentified individuals. They submit that these incidents have been reported to the Attorney General’s Office and brought to the attention of the National Human Rights Commission and the Committee of Relatives of the Detained–Disappeared in Honduras but that State authorities have failed to take any steps to investigate or afford protection. Furthermore, the petitioners claim that both the President of the Republic and the President and deputies of the Congress have lodged frivolous and malicious accusations against the alleged victims, which harm the dignity and honor of the alleged victims themselves and their families. B. State 13. For its part, the State maintains that the procedure followed by the National Congress ensured the alleged victims’ right of due process. It claims that on December 10, 2012, the Congress created a Special Committee that investigated the administrative conduct of the justices of the Supreme Court, in particular those on the Constitutional Chamber. It points out that the investigation concerned “their administrative conduct in matters of public security, by way of complementing the efforts made by the Congress in reforming the Constitution and issuing specific laws to afford more security to the citizens.” 14. The State submits that the Committee’s report established that the constitutional complaint filed to challenge the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption was resolved on November 27, 2012, after that law was no longer in force. In this regard, it notes that Decree 89-2012 concerning the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption was in force from May 25, 2012, to November 25, 2012. The Committee therefore deemed that the Constitutional Chamber’s decision was inconsistent with the security policy implemented by the legislative and executive branches, and that it caused serious harm to the State because it represented a setback in the progress made in fighting crime and jeopardized the security of people and their property. 15. The State indicates that several congressional deputies believed that the conduct of the justices of the Constitutional Chamber was manifestly contrary to the State’s public interest and that, as a result, they lodged a motion requesting their immediate removal from office. The State submits that afterward, the judicial vacancies were filled pursuant to the provisions of domestic law. 16. Lastly, the State affirms that the processing and resolution of the constitutional appeal and the appeal for review were done in full observation of the rights of access to justice and due process, without any constraints on the alleged victims. III. DETERMINATIONS OF FACT A. Relevant legal framework 17. The Constitution of Honduras establishes the following: Article 205. The National Congress shall have the following powers: …. 9. To elect for the corresponding term, and from the nominee pool of candidates proposed by the Nominating Board referred to in this Constitution, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice…. 20. To approve or disapprove the administrative conduct of the executive branch, the judicial branch and the Supreme Elections Tribunal, the Superior Tribunal of Accounts, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Office of the Attorney for the Environment, Public Ministry, Office of the National Commissioner of Human Rights, National Registry of Persons, decentralized institutions and other Auxiliary and Special Institutions of the State. 3