- 81 order to substitute all the justices are unclear.423 This uncertainty about the procedure to follow in order to compose the Constitutional Chamber responsible for deciding the eventual applications for amparo against the Judicial Service Council’s decision undermines the possible effectiveness of the remedy because it does not allow the impartiality of the judge to be guaranteed. 250. In addition to the findings in paragraphs 148 to 155 of this judgment, the Court concludes that it was foreseeable that, even if the application for amparo had been filed, it would have been ineffective. Therefore, the Court finds that the State violated Article 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Adán Guillermo López Lone, Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, Luis Alfonso Chévez de la Rocha and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza. VII-3 PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY 251. The Commission and the representatives argued the violation of Article 9424 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, based on the facts relating to the proceedings to dismiss Judges Adán Guillermo López Lone, Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado and Luis Alfonso Chévez de la Rocha, and also Justice Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza. In this chapter, the Court will set out their arguments and then proceed to examine the alleged violations of this article. A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 252. The Commission concluded that, in this case, the principle of legality has been violated owing to: (i) the lack of precision and clarity of the norms cited in the dismissal decisions; (ii) the absence of any relationship between the grounds cited and the conducts penalized; (iii) the lack of clarity as regards the normative sources of the sanctions applied; (iv) the lack of predictability of the sanctions applied, and (v) the application of grounds that restricted the lawful exercise of other rights. As regards (i), the absence of clarity and precision of the norms cited in the dismissal decisions, it considered that “several of the articles cited lack[ed] a clear and precise definition of the punishable conduct, […] thereby preventing judges from conducting themselves in such a way http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/CEDIJ/Leyes/Documents/CONSTITUCI% C3%93N%20DE%20LA%20REP%C3%9ABLICA%20%2809%29.pdf. 423 According to article 76 of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts: “[t]he Supreme Court shall have three substitute justices. Their constitutional term of office shall be six years, counted from the January 1 closest to the date on which they take office.” In addition, article 103 established that: “[i]f none of the appointed substitutes is able to take office in the Supreme Court, other lawyers shall be called on, in the capacity of members and, in each case, they shall be designated by the justices who remain on the court, provided they comply with the requirements to be justices. The parties shall be advised of the call for members referred to in the preceding paragraph before the latter take office. If there are no lawyers, other persons who meet the other characteristics required to be justices may be called as members” (merits file, folio 1546). Additionally, article 193 of the law establishes that: “[t]he Court itself shall examine the recusal of the justices of the Supreme Court and of the Appellate Courts, with the exclusion of the member or members who have been recused, and when the recusal is denied, the remedy of cassation alone shall be admissible, when applicable” (merits file, folio 803). Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/CEDIJ/Leyes/Documents/LEY%20DE%20 ORGANIZACI%C3%93N%20Y%20ATRIBUCIONES%20DE%20LOS%20TRIBUNALES%20%28ACTUALIZADA-07%29.pdf (cited by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Merits Report, merits file, folio 14). Likewise, the law referred to above, article 8 of the rules of procedure of the Supreme Court of Justice, in relation to article 15 of these rules and article 5 of the rules of procedure of the Constitutional Chamber establish that, it shall be the President of the Supreme Court of Justice or, if this is not possible, the President of the Constitutional Chamber, who has the power to constitute the chambers when there has been a disqualification or recusal; also, these norms establish that members of other chambers will be called on to substitute the justice who has been recused. 424 Article 9 of the Convention establishes that: “[n]o one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.”