34 must refrain from participating in political events and from airing political opinions […] 180 107. The decision cited above added that the publication of the article in the newspaper Tiempo “transformed [the judge’s] conduct into something unbecoming the office of a judge,” and observed that “no judge can claim the right to participate in national political discourse like any other citizen.” The decision also stated that his conduct was a violation of Article 319, paragraph two of the Constitution and the Model Ibero-American Code of Judicial Ethics. It added that because of his comments in the lecture and the newspaper article that followed, his conduct is unbecoming the dignity of the office of judge, in violation of the Code of Ethics of Judicial Officials and Employees.181 108. On May 21, 2010, the alleged victims filed a request with the Supreme Court seeking reconsideration of their disciplinary dismissal.182 The reconsideration request pointed out, inter alia, that the petitioners had learned of the decision to dismiss them because a justice on the Court had reportedly confirmed that fact with the media, before the petitioners ever received notification.183 In an interview that the Chief Justice of the SCJ on June 4, 2010, he revealed that “the justices who voted the first time, confirmed their decision on the second occasion; the vote count was the same in both cases.”184 On June 16, 2010, the Court issued a decision ordering Judge Barrios’ dismissal. It read as follows: THE SCJ HEREBY DECIDES: 1) To dismiss attorney RAMON ENRIQUE BARRIOS from the post of judge on the San Pedro Sula District Sentencing Court, department of Cortés, for serious noncompliance with or violation of his duties and for engaging in acts inimical to dignity in the administration of justice, by have accepted an invitation to give a lecture in Auditorium Number Four of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, Valle de Sula Campus, for professors, employees and the general public. The lecture was about the events of June 28, 2009 and was delivered outside the classroom. The opinions expressed transformed the lecture into a political event. Under the Constitution of the Republic, the Judicial Career Service Act, the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts and the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees, judicial officials shall not engage in such activities and must refrain from participating in political events or expressing political views, either in private or in public, even though other citizens are permitted to do so. Academic freedom allows a university professor, even one who is also a judge, to discuss and analyze current national events with his or her students from an eminently legal standpoint; however that freedom does not extend to any other chat or lecture for an audience other than his duly enrolled students since he or she is prevented from doing so precisely because he or she is a judge and as such must refrain from airing political views. Judge Barrios’ conduct was unbecoming the dignity of his office because he did not avoid 180 Annex 19. Investigation report. Resolution of May 5, 2010. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 181 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Resolution of May 5, 2010. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 182 May 21, 2010. 183 May 21, 2010. Annex 17. Appeal filed with the SCJ seeking reconsideration of the disciplinary dismissal. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of July 6, 2010. Annex 17. Appeal filed with the SCJ seeking reconsideration of the disciplinary dismissal. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of July 6, 2010. 184 Annex 18. Press release La Prensa.hn, Prefiere renunciar a permitir injerencia. El Presidente de la SCJ dice que lo político no está sobre la ley [He would rather resign than allow interference. Chief Justice of SCJ says politics is not above the law], June 4, 2010. Attachment to the original petition received July 6, 2010.