“1. Designate as members of the Constitutional Chamber, in addition to Justice Oscar Fernando Chinchilla Banegas, who is already a member, the attorneys Silvia Trinidad Santos Moncada, Germán Vicente García, José Elmer Lizardo, and Víctor Manuel Lozano. “2. Designate Justice Oscar Fernando Chinchilla Banegas as President of the Constitutional Chamber as of today’s date and until January 27, 201[illegible].” 23 D. Constitutional appeal filed to challenge the dismissal decision 33. On December 12, 2012, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma, and Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, representing themselves, lodged an appeal for protection of constitutional rights (recurso de amparo) challenging the decision made by the Congress of the Republic to dismiss them from office. 24 In addition, Mauricio Torres Molinero and Rafael Virgilio Padilla Paz filed another writ of amparo on behalf of the alleged victims to appeal their separation. 25 34. The alleged victims argued that the Honduran Congress arrogated to itself the power to remove them from their positions as justices, even though that power had not been conferred on it by the Constitution, and that this was therefore an arbitrary and illegal act. They further claimed that there had been a violation of judicial independence and the minimum guarantees of due process, and noted that the decision to dismiss them was an unnecessary response to a judgment issued by the justices of the Constitutional Chamber in the exercise of their jurisdictional authority. Lastly, they requested that Justice Oscar Fernando Chinchilla Banegas recuse himself from hearing the amparo case, due to his personal and direct relationship with the act being challenged. 26 35. The aforementioned constitutional actions were registered under the numbers 1019 and 1026 of 2012, but because they were pursuing the same objective, they were joined for a joint decision. 27 The petitioners argued that the President of the Supreme Court installed the replacement justices without first having resolved the constitutional appeal. Subsequently, the Constitutional Chamber declined to hear the action in question, and so the President of the Supreme Court proceeded to set up a Special Chamber with other justices from the Plenary, who in turn declined to hear the case. Finally, a Special Chamber was established, made up three justices from the Plenary, including the President of the Court and two member justices. 28 36. On January 29, 2013, the Special Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided to reject the amparo appeal, indicating the following: “…. It can be concluded by constitutional provision, as well as the provisions of Article 9, paragraph 2, and paragraph 3, subparagraphs a), b), c), and d), of the Law on Constitutional Justice, that the actions arising from the legislative branch in the exercise of its powers, which those affected believe violate fundamental rights, are not subject to challenge by means of an amparo action, given that the members of the legislative branch (DEPUTIES) are not considered OFFICERS imbued with authority or power derived from the application of laws in the jurisdictional and administrative system. Consequently, the act of the National Congress that occurred on December 12, 2012, having been challenged by means of an amparo action or guarantee of protection, falls outside the purview of the Constitutional Chamber of the Honorable Supreme Court of Justice, as that body lacks jurisdiction or authority to hear and decide upon it; therefore, this Supreme Court of Justice deems it appropriate to refuse from the outset to hear this appeal or action for the reasons indicated above.” 29 37. It likewise indicated the following: Annex 20. Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice, Official Letter PCSJ N°001-2013 of January 3, 2013. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 24 Annex 21. Constitutional amparo action lodged by the alleged victims on December 12, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 25 Annex 22. Supreme Court of Justice, Resolution of February 6, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 26 Annex 21. Constitutional amparo action lodged by the alleged victims on December 12, 2012. Annex to the initial petition of February 5, 2013. 27 Annex 23. Supreme Court of Justice, Special Constitutional Chamber, Resolution of January 29, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 28 Annex 24. Individual dissenting vote of Justice Raúl Henriquez Interiano of February 4, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 29 Annex 22. Supreme Court of Justice, Resolution of February 6, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 23 8