Santos Moncada, José Elmer Lizardo, and Víctor Manuel Lozano. 18 These decisions were later formalized through Decree No. 191-2012 published in the Official Gazette on December 29, 2012. 19 That decree stated the following: “CONSIDERING: That four (4) Justices that belonged to the Constitutional Chamber of the Judiciary were removed from office due to disapproval of their administrative conduct, in accordance with Article 205, Powers, paragraphs 20) and 21) of the Constitution of the Republic, the respective vacancies remain, which must be filled to complete the remainder of the term of the substituted justices.” 20 30. In the face of this situation, the alleged victims issued a communiqué stating that their dismissal was for political, not juridical, reasons, since they had issued their decisions in a reasoned and independent manner, without submitting to any type of pressure. They also indicated the following: “…. That the dismissal proceeding that was carried out has no legal basis whatsoever. The ostensible ground for this action was our ‘administrative conduct,’ pursuant to the power contained in paragraph 20 of Article 205 of the Constitution of the Republic, and the report that was read in the Legislative Chamber refers to a decision issued by the Constitutional Chamber, which is not yet final, as it was not unanimous and therefore was sent to be heard and decided upon by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice. Said decision was issued pursuant to the law, as the product of a jurisdictional function of the judicial branch. It is worth remembering that we justices on the various Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice have no administrative functions, because the National Congress itself determined that to be the case since January 2011. The only person in charge of administrative functions is the President of the Court, Jorge Alberto Rivera Avilés. “That our dismissal has violated our constitutional rights, such as due process, the right of defense, the right to be heard, and other fundamental rights which are recognized in the national as well as international framework and which we will vindicate by legal means. “That the action carried out by a segment of the National Congress of the Republic violates the principle of separation of powers contained in the Constitution of the Republic and has abruptly interfered with the jurisdictional function of this branch of government, in such a way that it has resulted in an alteration of the constitutional order, as the Congress does not have the authority to take that action.” 21 31. Along the same lines, seven justices of the Supreme Court also issued a communiqué expressing their concern regarding their colleagues’ dismissal: “…. That given the decision by a branch of the State that resulted in the substitution of four Justices of the Constitutional Chamber, we consider that this is not consistent with democratic institutions and represents an attack on the independence of the judicial branch. “That judicial independence is not a privilege of Judges and Justices but a right of citizens, so that the cases that are brought before the judicial system may be resolved without undue interference from any authority or individuals, but only in accordance with the proven facts of the case and the application of the legal regime.”22 32. On January 3, 2013, the President of the Supreme Court of Justice, Jorge Rivera Avilés, issued Official Letter PCSJ No. 001-2013, addressed to the Justices of the Supreme Court, in which he stated: “For your information, you are being sent a copy of Official Letter No. 462-2012/CN dated December 12, 2012, subscribed by Gladys Aurora López Calderón, Secretary of the National Congress, and the Certification dated December 19, 2012, subscribed by Attorney Rigoberto Chang Castillo, First Secretary of the National Congress. “Taking into consideration the aforementioned documents and in order for you to express an opinion regarding the invitation to refrain from hearing amparo appeal No. 1026-12, the Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice, pursuant to the provisions established in Article 16 of the Internal Rules of Procedure of this Supreme Court, determines to: 18 Annex 16. Secretariat of the National Congress, Official Letter No. 482-2012/CN of December 12, 2012; Secretariat of the National Congress, Certification of Session held on December 12, 2012. Annexes to the petitioners’ brief of November 20, 2018. 19 Annex. 17. Official Gazette of the Republic of Honduras, Decree No. 191-2012 of December 29, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 20 Annex 17. Official Gazette of the Republic of Honduras, Decree No. 191-2012 of December 29, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 21 Annex 18. Communiqué of December 12, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 22 Annex19. Communiqué of December 13, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 7