his capacity as a judge in relation to the internal problems affecting the Christian Democrat Party and not recusing himself in relation to said crisis, as well relinquishing the objectiveness and impartiality that his office demanded.10 21. The above decree was adopted at a session of the Legislative Assembly presided over by the vice speaker, a deputy who was reportedly a member of the PDC.11 2. The Reinstatement of Mr. Colindres as a Judge of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal 22. On December 2, 1996, Mr. Colindres filed an application for constitutional relief (amparo) (No. 44-C-96) from Decree 899 with the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court.12 On November 4, 1997, the Division reinstated Mr. Colindres as a judge of the TSE. The Division acknowledged “the constitutional and infraconstitutional rules do not envisage an express procedure for the removal of judges” from the TSE.13 However, it said that if the Legislative Assembly was the competent body to appoint TSE judges "it would be perfectly reasonable to interpret, bearing in mind the political origin of the appointment" that it was also competent to decide their removal from office. However, for that purpose, the "right to a hearing” had to be ensured.14 The Division ordered Judge Colindres to be reinstated in view of the fact that he was afforded no such guarantee in the process.15 3. Mr. Colindres Second Dismissal on July 2, 1998 23. On March 17, 1998, PDC deputies presented an “application for a motion” to remove Judge Colindres from office,16/17 taking into account the reasons established in Decree 899 and reiterating that he had acted with bias in his adjudicatory capacity in relation to the internal problems of the Christian Democrat Party.18 On March 24, 1998, Legislative Decision 281 created a special committee to guarantee the right of judge Colindres to a hearing.19 10 Legislative Decree 899 of November 22, 1996, item V, Annex 3 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 11 In that connection, Deputy Arístides Alvarenga, who signed Decree 899, identifies himself as a member of the PDC in the record of the plenary session of April 30, 1998, in relation to the discussion of item No. 4-A, pp. 78 and 85. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received on February 22, 2002. 12 Brief from Mr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres to the Political Committee dated May 26, 1998, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 1157-4-98 and 1058-3-98, p. 2v. Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). Amparo Application No. 44-C-96 of December 2, 1996. Annex 4 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 13 Ruling accepting Amparo Application No. 44-C-96, p. 27. Annex 5 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 14 Ruling accepting Amparo Application No. 44-C-96, p. 26. Annex 5 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 15 Ruling accepting Amparo Application No. 44-C-96, p. 33. Annex 5 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 16 The petition for dismissal was presented by the following deputies: Ronal Umaña, Alfonso Aristides Alvarenga, José Ricardo Vega, René Napoleón Aguiluz, Ernesto Santiago Varela, and Rubén Armando Dario Escalante. Legislative Decree No. 348 of July 2, 1998, p. 163, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 1157-4-98 and 1058-3-98, p. 128, Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 17Motion to dismiss Mr. Colindres, p. 119, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 1157-4-98 and 1058-3-98, p. 128, Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 18 They said that Judge Colindres “has caused widespread malaise in the entities of the public administration, preventing the TSE from operating as it should and from meeting the administration's needs and requirements, a fact exacerbated by his clear lack of training and probity in the performance of his duties by acting with bias in his capacity as a judge in relation to the internal problems affecting the Christian Democrat Party and not recusing himself in relation to said crisis.” Legislative Decree 899 of November 22, 1996. Annex 3 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 19Legislative Decision No. 281, p. 122, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 1157-4-98 and 1058-3-98, p. 128, Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 5