- 35 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide a detailed report on the events that had been denounced.182 107. On the same date, Ms. Flores Lanza and a group of persons filed a criminal complaint before the Prosecutor General accusing members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of Honduras and other persons who “took part in and approved the decision or decree ousting José Manuel Zelaya Rosales]” of “falsification of public documents, abuse of authority, home invasion, terrorism, rebellion, treason, and crimes against the form of government and against senior officials of the Honduran State.”183 108. On July 1, 2009, the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals opened an investigation, ex officio, against Ms. Flores Lanza, based on the applications for amparo filed in favor of President Zelaya, indicating that she had learned of these applications “on the evening television news.”184 On July 30, that year, the Inspector General concluded, in a report forwarded to the Supreme Court of Justice, with a copy to the Personnel Management Directorate, that, on June 30, Ms. Flores Lanza was in the capital, Tegucigalpa, and “written proof existed that she had not requested the respective permission.” The Inspector General stated that “[t]he exercise of the functions of justice or judge […] is incompatible with the actions and conducts that have been described; unless such actions had been taken on her own behalf, or on behalf of her spouse or immediate family members.” The Inspector General also indicated that: The fact that the officials under investigation established the District Appellate Court of San Pedro Sula and the Sentencing Court of the same Judicial District as the place to receive notifications, […] in addition to demonstrating lack of respect towards their office, is aggravated by the fact that the acts took place before the highest court of justice and had public repercussions, apart from the fact that the said courts have the exclusive and specific purpose of imparting and administering justice, to the exclusion of any other activity.185 109. In this regard, she indicated that the conduct “fell within the provisions of article 53(g) of the Judicial Service Act.” Therefore, she recommended to the Supreme Court that it “follow through with any appropriate disciplinary measures.”186 110. On August 12, 2009, Ms. Flores Lanza submitted a request for a declaration of nullity in the proceedings concerning the application for amparo.187 On September 9, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber declared the nullity requested, ex officio, but also declared that the request for a declaration of nullity submitted by Ms. Flores Lanza was inadmissible, because she was not authorized to submit this. In this regard, it indicated that: 182 Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of June 30, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2931). 183 Complaint filed by Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and others on June 30, 2009, before the Prosecutor General (evidence file, folios 5666 and 5667). The group of those presenting this complaint included Mr. Lopez Lone. 184 Record of investigation by the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals of July 1, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2892). 185 Special Report of July 30, 2009, signed by the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals and addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folio 2902), and decision of the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals of July 31, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2904). 186 Special Report of July 30, 2009, signed by the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals and addressed to the President of the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folios 2902 and 2903). Mr. López Lone was also included in this investigation. However, the procedure with regard to Mr. López Lone was suspended temporarily because he was “on medical leave.” According to information provided by the representatives, the investigation against Mr. López Lone was not taken up again subsequently. Cf. Brief of the representatives of August 12, 2015 (merits file, folio 1928). 187 The nullity was requested because the June 30 report in relation to the application for amparo submitted by the respondent authority had been prepared by the Legal Auditor and not by the Head of the Armed Forces, General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, against whom the application had been filed. Cf. Brief requesting a declaration of nullity received on August 12, 2009, signed by Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and addressed to the Constitutional Chamber (evidence file, folio 2472).