4. Remedies Attempted by Judge Colindres Prior to His Dismissal on July 2, 1998 30. On April 20, 1998, Mr. Colindres filed an application for constitutional relief (amparo) (No. 130-98) with the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court against Decision 281 which created the Special Committee.38 The Division provisionally suspended the challenged decision;39 however, on April 30, 1998, it dismissed the application.40 The decision was based on the fact that the petition lodged “contains a number of flaws that prevent examination of the claim contained in it,” and it indicated that there was “objective indetermination in the decision of the authority against which the suit was brought” and “subjective indetermination with regard to the person aggrieved,” since the petition affirmed that it was a case of persecution to create legal uncertainty for the judges of the TSE. 31. While the amparo application was being processed, at the plenary session of April 30, 1998, the Assembly authorized the “formation” of a special committee to look into the institutional implications of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice in relation to the initially ordered suspension.41 32. On April 21, 1998, Judge Colindres presented a petition of habeas corpus,42 which was ruled inadmissible for not being the suitable remedy.43 Finally, on May 5, 1998, Judge Colindres filed another application for constitutional relief (No. 147-98) against Decision 281 (which created the Special Committee).44 33. On that occasion, Mr. Colindres said that the new proceeding before the assembly constituted a violation of the principle of res judicata acquired by the ruling issued by the Division in 1996. He also said that he was being made the target of harassment and persecution by the Assembly, which had the power to “investigate acts of national interest,” not to delegate authority to a committee so that he might exercise his right to a hearing. Judge Colindres said that the actions of the assembly were impairing his “personal liberty to discharge [his] functions as a result of due process violations.” [Tr: Spanish text in quotes confusing] Finally, his petition requested the Division to appoint an enforcement judge and to order the Legislative Assembly and the Special Committee to refrain “from continuing to restrict [his] personal liberty to discharge [his] functions.” 45 38Initial amparo application, No. 130-98, April 20, 1998, p. 5, Annex 10 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 39Ruling of the Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court admitting amparo application No. 130-98, April 20, 1998, Annex 11 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 40Decision to dismiss amparo application 130-98, April 30, 1998, Annex 12 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 41One deputy said that the committee should examine “this interference and its abusive encroachment on the jurisdiction of this organ of the State.” A deputy of the PDC, for his part, was in favor of investigating the Court to ascertain if “it really is a guarantor of the rule of law in our country.” Record of the plenary session of April 30, 1998, in relation to the discussion on item No. 4-A, pp. 78 and 85. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received on February 22, 2002. Record of the plenary session of April 30, 1998, in relation to the discussion on item No. 4-A, pp. 78 and 85. Annex to the petitioners’ brief received on February 22, 2002. 42Petition same date). of habeas corpus 210-98, April 21, 1998, Annex 14 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that 43Ruling of inadmissibility on habeas corpus petition 210-98, May 4, 1998, Annex 15 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 44Initial amparo application, No. 147-98, May 5, 1998, p. 6, Annex 16 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 45Initial amparo application, No. 147-98, May 5, 1998, p. 6, Annex 16 to the petitioner's initial petition of May 4, 2000 (received on that same date). 8