33 103. On October 27, 2009, Judge Barrios was summoned to appear before the Office of the Director of Personnel Management.172 After requesting additional time to prepare his defense, a new hearing was set for December 7, 2009. There he underscored the point that his comments were made in his capacity as a law professor and not as a sentencing judge.173 The judge added that the SCJ was waging a campaign to persecute judges who are members of the AJD, to silence their voices of criticism and dissent within the Judicial Branch. He also asserted that his right of defense had been violated, claimed the statute of limitations and offered evidence.174 104. On December 10, 2009, the Office of the Director made its decision on the evidence offered.175 On February 8, 2010, Judge Barrios filed an appeal arguing, inter alia, that disciplinary action was time barred.176 The Judicial Career Council dismissed that argument as “unfounded” since such appeals concern the “procedures that have to be followed in regular proceedings.” 177 105. When the evidence from the Inspector General’s Office was examined on April 7, 2010, it was found that the folder of 2009 circulars in the Office of the Director of Judicial Personnel Management contained the communication referenced at supra paragraph 54. On April 12, 2010, the evidence offered by Judge Barrios was heard and consisted of one witness testifying to his official conduct and another testifying about the publication of the article.178 106. On April 20, 2010, the Office of the Director of Personnel Management sent a recommendation to the SCJ to the effect that Judge Barrios be dismissed.179 On May 5, 2010, the SCJ resolved to dismiss Judge Barrios from his post, without liability to the institution. That decision is signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and its Secretary, and reads as follows: [T]he conduct of Judge Barrios has been duly established: he accepted an invitation to give a lecture [at the UNAH] […] for professors, employees and the general public concerning the events that occurred on June 28, 2009. Conducted outside the classroom setting, opinions were expressed during the lecture, which became political as a result. Under [the law] […] judicial officials are prohibited from engaging in such conduct and 172 Annex 19. Investigation Report, Judicial Branch. Office of the Deputy Director of Judicial Career Personnel Management. Summons. October 27, 2009. Page 216. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 173 Annex 19. Investigatio nReport. Rebuttal Hearing No. 173-2009, Ramón Enrique Barrios. December 7, 2009. Pages 254-259. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 174 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Rebuttal Hearing No. 173-2009, Ramón Enrique Barrios. December 7, 2009. Pages 254-259. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 175 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Memorandum from the Deputy Direct of Personnel Management. December 10, 2009. Page 459. Attachment to the petitioners ‘communication of January 20, 2011. 176 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Appeal filed with the Director of Personnel Management of the SCJ. February 8, 2010. Pages 466- 468. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 177 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Judicial Career Council. Decision on the appeal. February 22, 2010. Pages 466468. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 178 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Record of Inspection on April 7, 2010. Page 484. Record of Hearing on April 12, 2010. Pages 519. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 179 Annex 19. Investigation Report, Decision 171-173-174-2010 from the Office of the Director of Personnel Management. April 20, 2010. Pages 525. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011.