“CONSIDERING: That in accordance with the provisions established in Article 41, final paragraph, and Article 70 of the Law on Constitutional Justice, when the jurisdictional body declares that it lacks competence to consider an amparo action, it shall forward the original to the competent officer within no later than twenty-four hours for the proper course of action. However, such a situation, due to the legal nature of the Constitutional Chamber’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as well as the impossibility of another jurisdictional body having competence to hear and decide the case, [the Special Constitutional Chamber] declines to forward the amparo briefs to a particular official or Court.” 30 38. For his part, Justice Raúl Henriquez Interiano cast his individual vote on February 4, 2013, in which he expressed his dissent from the January 29, 2013, resolution that rejected the amparo outright, because he believed that the constitutional appeal should have been admitted and the alleged victims reinstated in their positions. 31 The dissenting justice indicated the following with his vote: “…. I am voicing my opinion in that respect, expressing my surprise that my colleagues in the Chamber have avoided referring to Article 42 of the Law on Constitutional Justice; to the contrary, they skipped from Article 41 to 43, it being precisely Article 42 that allows constitutional protection actions directed against the National Congress to be admitted and resolved. That article dictates that an amparo action is appropriate against resolutions, acts, and deeds of the branches of the State. The National Congress being the body of the legislative branch and this being a branch of the State, the amparo guarantees should have been found to be admissible. “…. To think about exceptions, as my colleagues in this Chamber are doing, would be to “create islands of power” in the State, an absolute and unlimited power, dangerous to all the country’s citizens. To make interpretations such as those made by my colleagues in the Chamber is to leave vacuums that would allow citizens to be left abandoned or without protection from actions of the State, specifically on the part of the National Congress, which would be left with the authority to violate individual rights and guarantees with no accountability. “…. How is it possible that judges, who can be assumed to be guarantors of protection of fundamental rights, refuse to review acts of authority that might be in violation of human rights? In their eagerness to avoid hearing the case at hand, they did not even realize that the act that is the subject of the challenge was not committed in any case by a deputy or a group of deputies but by the National Congress as a whole.” 32 39. In response to this situation, on February 13, 2013, the alleged victims filed an appeal for review, arguing that the Supreme Court’s rejection of the amparo appeal constituted an absolute denial of justice and resulted in a situation in which the dismissed justices were left defenseless. 33 Mauricio Torres Molinero and Rafael Virgilio Padilla Paz also filed an appeal for review of the decision rejecting the constitutional amparo action. 34 40. On February 18, 2013, the Supreme Court declared the appeal for review filed by the alleged victims to be inadmissible. It argued that: “…. in view of the principle of the immutability of judgments, Article 6 of the Law on Constitutional Justice itself, in its first paragraph, states: The jurisdictional bodies, in the exercise of constitutional justice, may not change or modify their judgments once they are signed, but may clarify an unclear concept or correct material errors.” 35 E. Complaints regarding the violation of judicial independence by the legislative and executive branches 41. The case file includes information regarding statements that the then-President of the Republic made against the justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court. The former leader expressed his approval of the alleged victims’ dismissal: Annex 22. Supreme Court of Justice, Resolution of February 6, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. Annex 24. Individual dissenting vote of Justice Raúl Henriquez Interiano of February 4, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 32 Annex 24. Individual dissenting vote of Justice Raúl Henriquez Interiano of February 4, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 33 Annex 25. Appeal for review lodged on February 13, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 34 Annex 25. Appeal for review lodged on February 13, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of November 20, 2018. 35 Annex 26. Supreme Court of Justice, Resolution of February 18, 2013. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of September 30, 2013. 30 31 9