- 28 reflected the way in which the State applied the relevant procedural norms in force at the time of the facts (the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations, supra para. 70), together with constitutional provisions, to the disciplinary proceedings of the presumed victims 83. However, according to the rules of procedure of the General Inspectorate of Courts, and the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by an investigation carried out by the General Inspectorate of Courts, ex officio or following a complaint by someone, to be completed within 30 days at the most, after which the file had to be forwarded to the Judicial Service Directorate and to the Supreme Court.128 Once the investigation had been completed, the Personnel Management Directorate had to summon the judicial employee, having decided the charges that would be brought, so that the employee could appear before the Directorate and have the opportunity to provide and request evidence. After the evidence had been obtained, “the Directorate, or the Head of the unit hearing the case” would report on the results in the respective record, following which the “Personnel Management Directorate will take the final decision on whether or not to ratify the disciplinary sanction announced to the employee, notifying the decision to the person concerned in writing.”129 However, this latter part was not applied because the decision corresponded to the Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 77). 84. Subsequently, according to the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations, “[t]he judicial officer affected by a disciplinary measure or by dismissal may, within ten days at the most from the date of notification of the disciplinary measure or the dismissal, contest the measure before the Judicial Service Council.”130 The Council had to convene a hearing “so that the appellant and the Directorate could appear and present evidence, to be presented within fifteen of the date on which it was offered. Once the evidence had been presented, the Council would deliver its decision within the following five working days.”131 85. Additionally, article 68 of the Judicial Service Act established that “[t]he decisions of the Judicial Service Council resulting from a claim against dismissal may consist in confirmation of the dismissal or reinstatement of the judicial official or employee concerned, either to the same post or to another of the same category, with the right to receive the salary accrued since his removal from the post.” Meanwhile, article 69 stipulates that “[t]he judicial officer who has been removed from his post without a justified cause, shall have the right to be reinstated in his post, as provided for in the preceding article, or to receive compensation equivalent to a month of salary for each year of service up to a maximum of six years, when his reinstatement is not possible or desirable, pursuant to the ruling of the Judicial Service Council.”132 Lastly, article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council establish that: “no ordinary or special appeal is allowed against the final decisions issued by the Council” (supra para. 26). C. The disciplinary proceedings against the presumed victims C.1) Adán Guillermo López Lone 128 Cf. Rules of procedure of the General Inspectorate of Courts, Articles 10, 11, 14 and 15. Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/transparencia/regulacion/Documents/Reglamento%20de%20la%20Inspector%C3%ADa%2 0General%20de%20Tribunales.pdf 129 Cf. Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, article 190 (evidence file, folio 201). 130 Judicial Service Act, article 67 (evidence file, folio 4168), and Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, article 190 (evidence file, folio 201). 131 Judicial Service Act, article 67 (evidence file, folio 4168), and Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, article 190 (evidence file, folio 201). 132 Judicial Service Act, articles 68 and 69 (evidence file, folios 4168 and 4169).