37. It was accompanied by the dissenting opinion of Judge José Henrique Argumedo, who considered that the Assembly did not have disciplinary powers.54 Specifically, he considered that the Assembly only had the powers granted it by Article 131 (38) of the Constitution. He added that, absent any regulations, the only way to remove a member of the TSE from office was by applying Article 236 of the Constitution concerning the responsibility of public servants for the commission of offenses.55 38. On July 27, 1999, Mr. Colindres filed another amparo application (No. 588-99) against Decree 348 in which he argued, among other things, that the Constitutional Division had not pronounced on the violation of due process and the right to a hearing, or on the inclusion of disobedience as grounds for his dismissal.56 The application was refused on November 5, 1999.57 The Division held that in essence the claim “was based on a mere disagreement with the procedure followed by the Legislative Assembly” and that “the Division is not the body to review the opinions expressed by the Legislative Assembly in Legislative Decree No. 348, or the material assessments or proceedings under Article 11 of the Constitution.”58 6. Petition for Damages in Relation to the First Dismissal 39. On January 12, 1999, Mr. Colindres filed suit for damages with the First Civil Chamber of the First Section of the Center,59 requesting payment of moral damages, consequential damages, and lost earnings between November 22, 1996 (the date of his first dismissal), and November 4, 1997 (the date of the judgment of the Constitutional Division).60 After a series of motions, on December 22, 2009, the Supreme Court decided to confirm the decision of the First Civil Chamber of the First Section of the Center, which ordered the payment of a sum of money in Mr. Colindres’ favor.61 That judgment was issued in 2001 and a cassation appeal was filed against it. Therefore, the decision on the cassation appeal took more than eight years. There is no information in the record about any procedures or steps taken in that interval. 40. As the State has recognized, that decision became final on February 23, 2010.62 Although the State has reported in its briefs that progress had been made with the necessary steps to make the budget appropriation available, as of this writing the Commission has no information as to whether or not that payment was actually made. B. LEGAL ANALYSIS 54Ruling of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court declaring amparo application 231-98 unfounded, p. 36. Annex 21 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date) and enclosed with the State’s brief of November 14, 2000 (received on November 22, 2000). 55Ruling of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court declaring amparo application 231-98 unfounded, p. 36. Annex 21 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date) and enclosed with the State’s brief of November 14, 2000 (received on November 22, 2000). 56Amparo Application No. 588-98, p. 3. Annex 22 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 57According to the ruling, Judge José Enrique Argumedo again voted against the decision because he felt that the fact that the Special Committee and the Political Committee had concealed evidence from the legislative plenary and that the former had not even considered the petitions contained in his brief at the hearing, were not mere legal technicalities.” He also said that nothing had been done in relation to the evidence, despite the fact that it existed, given that it was concealed from the plenary. Judge Mario Solano Ramírez also dissented from the decision and added that the dismissal by the Assembly reflected excessive discretionality in its decisions that verged on the arbitrary. Ruling of inadmissibility on amparo application No. 588-98, p. 6. Annex 23 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date) and enclosed with the State’s brief of November 14, 2000 (received on November 22, 2000). 58Ruling of inadmissibility on amparo application No. 588-98, p. 4. Annex 23 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date) and enclosed with the State’s brief of November 14, 2000 (received on November 22, 2000). 59Civil suit for damages, p. 1. Annex to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 60Civil suit for damages, p. 6. Annex 6 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 61Ruling on civil cassation appeal No. 22-C-2001, p. 26. Appended by the petitioners on March 14, 2012 (received on that same 62State’s report of July 18, 2012. Enclosed with the State’s note No. 161/2012, received on July 19, 2012. date). 10