- 22 decrees that restricted rights.”93 Likewise, the Ombudsman supported the Supreme Court’s thesis and refused to investigate the allegations brought before his office.94 67. In addition, the case file shows that, by means of an internal circular, the Judiciary’s Head of Personnel, “on instructions from his superior, […] invited the Judiciary’s officials and employees to take part in the “March for Peace in Honduras” to be held on June 30, 2009, in support of the new government.95 A.4) The Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD) 68. All the presumed victims in this case were members of the AJD. The association was founded on August 12, 2006.96 According to its statutes, its basic purpose is “the defense, promotion and strengthening of the rule of law, specifically the area of justice, as well as respect for, and the independence of, the Honduran judiciary.” Only judges and justices who are in active service can be members of the association.97 69. In response to the events of June 2009, the AJD issued a communiqué on July 28, 2009, indicating its “profound concern [for] the situation of illegality and the collapse of all the institutions.” It also asserted that it “hope[d] that the Judiciary and, in particular, the Supreme Court of Justice, w[ould] fulfill their role of guaranteeing fundamental rights and placing a limit on other state authorities, exercising a jurisdictional role that, together with other actors, permits the return of the constitutional order.”98 In subsequent communications, it condemned “the unlawful detention and mistreatment suffered” by Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha,99 presumed victim in this case, as well as the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims and other judicial officials (infra paras. 86 to 147).100 B) Legal framework 70. This section describes the laws and regulations used by the State authorities and organs that intervened in the disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims that are relevant for analyzing the international responsibility of the State in this case. In this regard, at the time of the 93 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR). Para que los hechos no se repitan: Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, July 2011, p. 373 (evidence file, folio 7647). 94 Cf. United Nations, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état on 28 June 2009. Doc. UN A/HRC/13/66, March 3, 2010, para. 76 (merits file, folio 1294); IACHR, Honduras: Human rights and the coup d’état. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 55, December 30, 2009, para. 175, and Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR). Para que los hechos no se repitan: Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, July 2011, pp. 376 and 377 (evidence file, folios 7650 and 7651). 95 Cf. Communiqué of the Head of Personnel of the Personnel Management Directorate (evidence file, folio 397). Regarding this communication, an investigation carried out by the General Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals concluded that the official had issued this in error. Cf. Report of June 14, 2010, signed by the General Inspector of Courts and Tribunals and addressed to the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folios 854 and 858). 96 Cf. Judiciary of the Republic of Honduras, Association of Judges for Democracy. Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/asociaciones/Paginas/asociacionjd.aspx (cited in the pleadings and motions brief – merits file, folio 332). 97 Cf. Statutes of the Association of Judges for Democracy (AJD). Published in Official Gazette No. 31.528 of October 10, 2007, articles 6, 8 and 12 Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/asociaciones/Documents/Estatutos%20Asociaci%C3 %B3n%20de%20Judges%20por%20la%20Democracia.pdf 98 Communiqué of the Association of Judges for Democracy of July 28, 2009 (evidence file, folios 37 and 38). 99 Cf. Communiqué of the Association of Judges for Democracy of August 14, 2009 (evidence file, folio 41). 100 Cf. Communiqué of the Association of Judges for Democracy of October 7, 2009 (evidence file, folio 434), and Communiqué of the Association of Judges for Democracy of November 3, 2009 (evidence file, folio 45).