12. The State said that the dismissal of Judge Colindres was due to his official misconduct. It said that for that reason, the PDC political party presented a petition to the Legislative Assembly that resulted in Mr. Colindres’ removal from the post to which he had been appointed. 13. In relation to the first removal from office, the State said that the amparo application filed was an effective remedy as Judge Colindres was reinstated, in addition to which he was awarded compensatory damages. However, it added, due to the fact that the causes on which the petition for dismissal was based persisted, the Legislative Assembly, in exercise of its authority recognized by the Constitutional Division, instituted new proceedings in which the guarantees of due process were observed throughout without external pressures of any kind. 14. With respect to the proceeding for damages, the State said that the civil cassation appeal was decided on December 22, 2009, which decision became final on February 23, 2010. According to the State, that decision upheld the judgment on the first amparo application returned by the First Section of the Center, which found against the State for having dismissed Judge Colindres. The State said that steps were already being taken to enable the payment in the next fiscal year of the compensatory damages awarded to Mr. Colindres. It said that the institutional budget projections concluded with their presentation to the legislative branch for consideration and approval, which, it said, occurred in late September 2012. Subsequently, the State said that the 2013 budget policy was approved in April 2012. In that context, it informed the IACHR that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested verifications and that arrangements be made to include sufficient funds in the budget of the TSE or of the Legislative Assembly, so that the compensation awarded to Mr. Colindres could be paid. 15. The State said that it did not violate the right to a fair trial or the principle of legality, since the Legislative Assembly had the authority to dismiss the judge, given that, even though the domestic system of laws contains no provisions expressly governing that process, in view of the fact that the Legislative Assembly was responsible for the appointment, it should also be in charge of any petitions for dismissal when judges cease to meet such requirements. In that sense, it said that nor had it committed any violation of Mr. Colindres' right to participate in government. 16. As for the right to judicial protection, the State said that the remedies sought by Mr. Colindres during the disciplinary process and afterwards were decided by the Constitutional Division in accordance with the Constitution and the law, and were ruled inadmissible, either for improper filing, or for having no constitutional basis, or because Mr. Colindres allegations concerned mere legal technicalities. IV. ANALYSIS OF MERITS A. Proven Facts 17. At the time of the facts alleged in the petition, Mr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres was a lawyer with a bachelor's degree in sociology and a doctorate in history.2 He was appointed regular judge of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal by Legislative Assembly Decree 102 of August 11, 1994, for a term of five years,3 in accordance with the procedure established in Article 208 Constitution.4 Mr. Colindres was one of three 2 Brief from Mr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres to the Political Committee dated March 24, 1998, 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). 3 Official Gazette of the Republic of El Salvador, Legislative Decree 102 of August 29, 1994, Vol. 324, No. 158, p. 22. Annex 1 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 4 The relevant portion of this constitutional provision reads as follows: “Article 208. There shall be a Supreme Electoral Tribunal which shall consist of five judges, who shall serve for five years and be elected by the Legislative Assembly. Three of them from each of the shortlists of three candidates (ternas) proposed by the three political parties or legal coalitions that obtained the greatest number of votes in the last presidential election. The two remaining judges shall be elected with the favorable vote of at least two thirds of the elected Deputies, from two shortlists of three candidates proposed by the Supreme Court of Justice, who must meet the requirements to be judges of the divisions at second instance and have no party affiliation.” Constitution of El Salvador of 1983. Annex 2 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 3