-12an inclination to rule with insidiousness against the Christian Democratic Party that proposed his name for the position he currently holds.”58 41. On July 2, 1998, the Legislative Assembly, in the Plenary Session, introduced correspondence containing the document that reiterated the request for dismissal (supra para 40)59. In a plenary session that day, a representative of the PDC explained the party's institutional position, reiterating the grounds for the first dismissal (supra para 28) and requesting that votes be taken on his dismissal.60 That day, the dismissal was approved with 47 votes in favor.61 The decree established “that the causes that motivated [the first dismissal] still persist and having conferred the right to a hearing on Eduardo Benjamín Colindres, it is appropriate that he cease his duties as judge of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal.”62 D. Appeals filed by Mr. Colindres Schonenberg 42. During the process of the second dismissal, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed several appeals. On April 20, 1998, the alleged victim filed an amparo application against the decree that created the Special Commission and requested the suspension of the act claimed.63 The Constitutional Division admitted the appeal and ordered the provisional suspension of the agreement that created the Special Commission.64 That same day, the Legislative Assembly approved the formation of a special commission to investigate "the institutional implications generated by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice" related to the suspension initially ordered.65 43. On April 30, 1998, the Constitutional Division indicated that "the claim has been improperly admitted" and dismissed the process indicating that there was "objective uncertainty of the act of authority against which the claim is based," as well as "subjective uncertainty in relation to the person suffering the offense, since, in his lawsuit, he affirme[d that it related to] a persecution to frighten and create legal uncertainty for the judges and the [TSE].”66 44. On May 5, 1998, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed another amparo application against the agreement that created the Special Commission.67 On June 11, 1998, the Constitutional Division declared it to be inadmissible, indicating that there was no grievance due to the creation of the Special Commission that would guarantee the right to a hearing, “which does not imply a violation of the rights of the petitioner, but rather a compliance with constitutional requirements.”68 45. After the dismissal, on July 15, 1998, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed a new amparo application before the Constitutional Division against the decree providing for his dismissal, questioning the absence of powers the Assembly had to dismiss him, having been prosecuted twice for the same charges, and other violations of due process.69 58 Cf. Brief addressed to the managing board of the Legislative Assembly of June 30, 1998 (evidence file, folio 413). 59 60 Cf. Transcript of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly of July 2, 1998 (evidence file, folio 415). Cf. Transcript of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly on July 2, 1998 (evidence file, folios 416 to 418). Cf. Transcript of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly of July 2, 1998 (evidence file, folio 465). Cf. Legislative Decree No. 348 of July 2, 1998 (evidence file, folio 377). 63 Cf. Amparo application of April 20, 1998 (evidence file, folios 474). On April 22, 1998, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Constitutional Division, which was declared inadmissible as it did not constitute the appropriate method. Cf. Writ of habeas corpus of April 22, 1998 (evidence file, folios 483 and 484), and dismissal decision of April 30, 1998 (evidence file, folio 1539). 64 Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court of April 20, 1998 (evidence file, folio 478). 65 Cf. Transcript of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly on April 30, 1998 (evidence file, folios 311 and 318). 66 Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of April 30, 1998 (evidence file, folio 481). 67 Cf. Amparo application of May 5, 1998 (evidence file, folio 496). 68 Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of June 11, 1998 (evidence file, folio 1542). 69 Cf. Amparo application of July 15, 1998 (evidence file, folios 505, 506, 507, and 508). 61 62