had previously sent to the Special Committee.29 There is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Colindres had a formal opportunity to present his comments in relation to said documentation. 27. In a brief dated May 26, 1998, Judge Colindres informed the Political Committee that he had learned from media reports that the Special Committee had presented a report to the plenary of the legislature. In his brief, he questioned the proceeding and said that his right to a hearing had not been ensured.30 On June 24, 1998, the Political Committee said that "only the plenary of the legislature can adopt a decision on or accept the above report, and therefore it is returning it for its consideration.”31 There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Political Committee forwarded the brief that Mr. Colindres presented to the Legislative Assembly. 28. On June 29, 1998, the deputies who were seeking dismissal submitted a brief to the Officers of the Legislative Assembly.32 Among other things,33 they said that "the judge can no longer be relied upon for the future of democracy” because “he has developed an insidious tendency to rule against the Christian Democrat Party, which nominated him for the office he currently holds.”34 There is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Colindres had the opportunity to contest the contents of that brief. 29. On July 2, 1998, the Legislative Assembly adopted Decree 348 by which it removed Judge Colindres from office, saying that "the causes that prompted Decree 899 to be issued persisted.”35 The opinions of a number of deputies who disputed the authority of the Assembly to remove the judge were set down in the record of the plenary session at which the decision to dismiss was adopted.36 The decision was adopted by a vote of 47 deputies in favor, three against, and two abstentions. PDC deputies took part in the decision.37 29Brief of the TSE to the members of the Political Committee, dated May 25, 1998, p. 143, 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). 30 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. 2. Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 31Report of the Political Committee of June 24, 1998, p. 159, 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). 32 Brief of the deputies to the officers of the Legislative Assembly dated June 29, 1998, pp. 161-162, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 1157-4-98 and 1058-3-98, Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 33 They argued that "the judge's record of disrespect and distrust of the highest organ of the State, by accusing a parliamentary special committee established to ensure his right to a hearing of bias and manipulation, even led to a confrontation between the judicial branch and the highest State organ.” They also said that "Mr. Colindres was guilty of contempt by questioning the very deputies who were ensuring his right to a hearing," since, in it, “he not only rejected due process but also insulted a body of the Assembly by expressing offensive and inappropriate opinions about the deputies who were on that Committee.” Brief of the deputies to the officers of the Legislative Assembly dated June 29, 1998, pp. 161-162, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 11574-98 and 1058-3-98, Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 34 Brief of the deputies to the officers of the Legislative Assembly dated June 29, 1998, pp. 161-162, enclosed with the certification issued by the Legislative Assembly for files 1157-4-98 and 1058-3-98, Annex 9 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 35Legislative 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). 36 Thus, for example, Deputy Julio Samayoa said that “the Assembly could not dismiss certain officials simply because it elected them.” In that connection, he said that "it was not the first time that the Constitution was silent in that respect, since when the Constitution was promulgated there was no provision for the removal of the Prosecutor General or the Procurator General.” Therefore, until the "reforms establishing the causes” [for dismissal] were adopted, "the Assembly could not remove them from office because it lacked that authority, in spite of any precipitate act that the Prosecutor General might commit.” Verbatim record of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly of July 2, 1998, pp. 7, 10, and 11, Annex 18 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 37Verbatim record of the plenary session of the Legislative Assembly of July 2, 1998, p. 51, Annex 18 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 7