- 33 the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts and article 15(d) of the rules of procedure of the Supreme Court of Justice; without prejudice to any other method that the President or all the remaining members of the Council may determine.166 98. Following the preceding decision, the President of the Council appointed a lawyer to incorporate the Council and enable the process to proceed.167 Subsequently, another two members disqualified themselves, and two new substitute members were appointed.168 99. On August 24, 2011, the Council declared that the appeal filed by Mr. López Lone was inadmissible (supra para. 96).169 Regarding the alleged lack of competence, independence and impartiality of the Judicial Service Council to decide appeals against decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Council indicated that it was “an independent organ when issuing its decisions.” In addition, it emphasized the fact that permanent and substitute members had “disqualified themselves from hearing these proceedings,” thus guaranteeing impartiality. With regard to the members who had been appointed by the President, the Council indicated that “they were officials who had entered the Judiciary and been appointed to their functions through a competitive procedure and who had enjoyed a long and unblemished career within the Judiciary”; consequently, its independence could not be called into question.170 100. The Council considered that it had been duly proved that Mr. López Lone: Had played an active role in the partisan political protest carried out near the Toncontin Airport with flags representing the different political parties; […] added to this, the country’s main newspapers had mentioned that [his] participation […] was considered to be of a partisan political nature owing to his status as a judge, thus violating Article 319(2) of the Constitution […] and article 3(6) of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts, because this action was incompatible with the exercise of the post of judge, pursuant to the provisions of article 49 of the Judicial Service Act and article 156 of its Regulations.171 101. The Council also pointed out that, owing to his participation in the protest and the reports of this in the press, Mr. López Lone’s “impartiality and independence would be compromised when he was called upon to hear complaints filed by citizens with whom he had established a mutual interest in the political process in which they were partners in a common struggle.”172 102. Lastly, the Council underlined that Mr. López Lone’s statement at the hearing, that he had broken his leg during a “human stampede” that occurred at the demonstration in which he took part, “conflicted with the information he […] had entered on the form to claim medical expenses [from the insurance company].”173 However, it considered that “this circumstance does not warrant a sanction under the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations, but it should be noted that it ratifies the fact that [Mr. López Lone] was not at home, but rather in a partisan political meeting.”174 166 Resolution of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 14, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1017). 167 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of April 26, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1020). 168 Cf. Disqualification dated April 26, 2011, signed by Zoe Celeste Vásquez Ordoñez, Permanent Member of the Judicial Service Council (evidence file, folio 1022); decision of the Judicial Service Council of April 29, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1023), and notification of disqualification presented by Jorge Alberto Zelaya Saldana and appointment of Ernesto Antonio Rodríguez Corrales on August 1, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1036). 169 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 1079 and 1080). 170 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 1057 to 1081). 171 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1075). 172 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 1077 and 1078). 173 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 1076). 174 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 1076 and 1077).