that during the proceeding, no charges were presented for potential infractions committed, so that he could defend himself.15 According to public knowledge information, NCM’s president indicated in an interview that during the assessment and ratification proceedings for judges and prosecutors, personal aspects, such as personal behavior and even family status, were taken into account.16 35. On November 20, 2002, the NCM passed a resolution establishing the petitioner’s nonratification as Judge of the Judicial District, Northern Cone, as well as the annulment of his appointment as such.17 In the said resolution, it is indicated as follows: It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed: “First.- To non-ratify the following magistrates and prosecutor in their positions in the Judicial Branch and the Public Ministry, respectively: (...) Judicial District, Northern Cone: 8 Cuya Lavy, Jorge Luis (…)” and “Second.- To cancel the appointments given in favor of the non-ratified judges and the prosecutor mentioned.”18 36. On December 4, 2002, the alleged victim filed for a motion of appeal against that decision, claiming that he had been the magistrate of the Judicial Branch since 1994, having demonstrated full honesty and integrity in his position; in spite of which, the NCM did not ratify him without any motivation and without respecting due process.19 37. On December 5, 2002, the first instance appeal petition was declared inadmissible. The petitioner filed for a motion of appeal and on March 21, 2003, the Third Civil Room voided the judgment. Later on, the alleged victim filed for a special remedy before the Constitutional Court, which on July 15, 2003, declared the writ of amparo unfounded, since the NCM’s ratification function “might exceptionally be reviewed in the case of irregular exercise” and in the petitioner’s case, “there are no objective reasons allowing considering that the said situation took place.”20 It added that: (...) the right to remain in active service is not chronologically infinite or until a certain age is reached but it is predetermined in time; this is, for seven years, and when this term culminates, the continuation in service is subjected to the ratified condition of the person assessed (...) (...) the non-ratification constitutes a confidence vote on the tenure of office’s way of fulfillment (...) it is based on a series of hints that, according to the NCM’s Councilors, turns the renewal of confidence inconvenient for the tenure of office (...) it is constructed from a conviction of expressed conscience in secret ballot, though based on certain criteria (Cf. The NCM’s Organizational Law and its Regulations) (...) it is not required that the decision taken be motivated.21 38. The Constitutional Court recognized that the prohibition to re-enter the Judicial Branch was incompatible with the ratification proceedings, since they did not imply a punishment, so it was established that the said prohibition was inapplicable.22 Initial petition by petitioner Cuya Lavy, April 30, 2003. Annex 4. News article “NCM reveals it considered personal behavior during the assessment,” Diario El Comercio, December 2002. Annex to the initial petition by petitioner Cuya Lavy, April 30, 2003. 17 Annex 5. Summons No. 500-2002-CNM, issued by the National Council of the Magistracy, November 20, 2002. Annex to the initial petition by petitioner Cuya Lavy, April 30, 2003. 18 Annex 5. Summons No. 500-2002-CNM, issued by the National Council of the Magistracy, November 20, 2002. Annex to the initial petition by petitioner Cuya Lavy, April 30, 2003. 19Annex 6. Judgment of the Second Room of the Constitutional Court, delivered within case file No. 1525-2003-AA/TC, July 15, 2003. Annex to the brief by petitioner Cuya Lavy, October 21, 2013. 20 Annex 6. Judgment of the Second Room of the Constitutional Court, delivered within case file No. 1525-2003-AA/TC, July 15, 2003. Annex to the brief by petitioner Cuya Lavy, October 21, 2013. 21 Annex 6. Judgment of the Second Room of the Constitutional Court, delivered within case file No. 1525-2003-AA/TC, July 15, 2003. Annex to the brief by petitioner Cuya Lavy, October 21, 2013. 22 Annex 6. Judgment of the Second Room of the Constitutional Court, delivered within case file No. 1525-2003-AA/TC, July 15, 2003. Annex to the brief by petitioner Cuya Lavy, October 21, 2013. 15 16 7