62. The CNM issued Resolution 009-96-PCNM on August 14, 1996, ordering the dismissal of Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez from his position as a Provisional Judge of the Superior Court of Huánuco and as a Permanent Judge of the Mixed Court of the Province of Huamalíes. It also ordered the cancellation of his appointment and his title.18 The CNM found that: Second: That the magistrate being processed is charged with conducting an irregular procedure to grant leave for more time than requested by Dr. San Martín and with having appointed a judge from a court that was not the appropriate one for handling an important criminal process (...) that these facts are duly proven in the investigation carried out by the Judiciary Oversight Office and are serious, as they demonstrate a failure to perform the essential duties of an official in charge of managing the human resources of a Judicial District and whose behavior caused a situation of insecurity and risk to society in the context of a serious crime with both individual and societal repercussions; that the circumstances surrounding this conduct corroborate the conviction that the accused has committed actions that, while not criminal, compromise the dignity of the office of President of a Superior Court and diminish it in the eyes of the public; that is, his actions meet the legal standards set forth in law twenty-six thousand three hundred and ninety-seven, the Organic Law of the Council, for the sanction of dismissal (...).19 63. It likewise dismissed the possibility of collusion between the alleged victim and Mr. Cordero Bernal: This collusion was a grounds introduced by the director of the disciplinary investigation, but is not the grounds on which this dismissal is based and is thus considered accessory information and therefore merely provided for reference.20 64. In response to this situation, the alleged victim filed a writ of reconsideration before the CNM. The Commission has no information on the content of this remedy. However, on December 4, 1996, the CNM, declared the writ of reconsideration submitted by Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez without merit, as the irregularities identified in the disciplinary measure had been proven.21 It argued: That the copy of the leave request submitted by Judge Dr. Jacinto Oriol San Martin Arcayo (...); the citation signed by the magistrate being processed and eight judges in acknowledgement of having read it; the copy of the resolution dated June 21, 1995, signed by seven magistrates granting the aforementioned leave and appointing Dr. Héctor Cordero Bernal; and the press clipping containing information on the correction of a news item describing a judge as a former terrorist, documents that have been attached to the brief of reconsideration, offer no evidence that would challenge the grounds of the Resolution being appealed; that effectively, the Resolution to dismiss is based on the irregularity committed by having granted Judge Dr. Oriol San Martin leave of more time than required by the doctor’s note; having obtained an agreement to grant sixty days of leave, having stated incorrectly that in the agreement, the judges appointed Dr. Cordero Bernal as substitute, something they emphatically deny, and having withdrawn the judgeship from that judge (...) that is should also be underscored that the date and content of the text of the agreement (...) do not correspond to reality (...); that the Plenary of the Council observes that the documentation presented in itself lacks value (...).22 65. On February 11, 1997, the alleged victim filed a writ of amparo against the CNM, alleging a violation of his right to workplace stability, as in his capacity as the president of the court, he had complied with the decision handed down by the Plenary; in this regard, he argued that there was no legal provision in place requiring that the substitute magistrate must be the most remote judge, and that the sanction of dismissal for lateness in drafting a resolution was an abuse of authority on the part of the CNM.23 This constitutional action was denied Annex 10. National Council of the Judiciary, Resolution °009-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. 19 Annex 11. National Council of the Judiciary, Resolution °009-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998 20 Annex 12. National Council of the Judiciary, Resolution °009-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998 21 Annex 5. National Council of the Judiciary, Resolution 029-96-PCNM of December 4, 1996. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998 22 Annex 14. National Council of the Judiciary, Resolution 029-96-PCNM of December 4, 1996. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. 23 Annex 15. Constitutional amparo of February 11, 1997. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. 18 11