- 10 26. The Court notes that, in the first brief it submitted to the Commission, the State had indicated that, according to article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, it was not possible to file another remedy.22 The said article 31 stipulates that: Article 31. The final decisions issued by the Council shall be clear, precise and congruent with the complaint and the other claims opportunely submitted during litigation, and shall include the considerations required by such claims, declare whether or not the claims are admissible, and decide all the contentious issues that were in dispute. If there were several issues, this shall be done duly separating the ruling corresponding to each of them. No ordinary or special appeal shall be admissible against the final decisions of the Council.23 27. However, in subsequent briefs Honduras indicated that this conclusion “disregard[ed] and contravene[d] article 320 of the Constitution which establishes that “[i]n cases of incompatibility between a constitutional norm and an ordinary legal norm, the former shall apply”; thus article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council was not applicable.24 In this regard, the State emphasized that, since its creation, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had been basing itself on the said article 320 of the Constitution to “found its rulings on the admissibility of, and decisions taken on, the different applications for amparo filed against acts of the Judicial Service Council.”25 The State, in a report presented by the President of the Supreme Court, gave the names of, and basic information on, 39 precedents that presumably demonstrated the availability of the remedy; however, it did not provide copies of these cases or refer to the grounds used by the respective courts so as not to apply article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council.26 28. The Court notes that the Constitution27 and the Constitutional Justice Act granted the presumed victims the possibility of filing an application for amparo.28 However, since article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council established that “[n]o ordinary or special appeal shall be admissible against the final decisions of the [Judicial Service] Council,” it could be interpreted that it was not possible to file an application for amparo.29 Given the uncertainty arising from the prohibition established in article 31 of the said rules of procedure, the presumed victims could not be required to exhaust the application for amparo as a requirement of admissibility. Furthermore, the State did not indicate why the said article 31 had not been expressly annulled. It should also be emphasized that, during the admissibility stage of the procedure before the Commission, the State failed to prove that article 31 of the said rules of procedure was not applicable in practice. The mere reference to the names and basic information of precedents of cases where applications for amparo had been decided against decisions of the Judicial Service Council was insufficient. The Court recalls that, when arguing the failure to exhaust domestic 22 Cf. The State’s brief of October 15, 2010 (evidence file, folio 99). 23 Rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council (evidence file, folio 218). 24 Cf. The State’s brief of March 11, 2011 (evidence file, folio 4636). 25 The State’s brief of March 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 4636 and 4637). 26 Cf. The State’s brief of March 11, 2011 (evidence file, folios 4638 to 4649). 27 The Constitution establishes that “any aggrieved person, or anyone on his or her behalf, has the right to file an application for amparo [… in order to uphold or reinstate the enjoyment of the rights and guarantees established by the Constitution and international treaties, conventions and other instruments, [or] to obtain a declaration, in specific cases, that the applicant is not bound by a regulation, action, act or decision of an authority, and the latter is not applicable because it contravenes, reduces or distorts any of the rights recognized by the Constitution.” 1982 Constitution of the Republic of Honduras (as amended up until January 20, 2006), article 183. Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/CEDIJ/Leyes/ Documents/CONSTITUCI%C3%93N%20DE%20LA%20REP%C3%9ABLICA%20%2809%29.pdf 28 Cf. Constitutional Justice Act, articles 41 and 42 (evidence file, folios 3918 and 3919). 29 Cf. Rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, article 31 (evidence file, folio 218)