20 of the arrest of Judge Chévez or indeed of any other person detained. Then Deputy Inspector Lorbin Mejía Torres reported that the names of those taken into custody “did not appear in the log books at the police station, nor were they read their rights, since they were not technically under arrest; they had simply been sent to the police station so that police could take their statements concerning the demonstration […] and to be checked over by the forensic physician; hence, they were free to leave whenever they wanted.”94 The Executor Magistrate stated that she spoke with Judge Chévez and, based on his statements, concluded that “it was apparent that […] the preventive police had subjected Luis Alonso Chévez [and others] to physical, verbal and psychological mistreatment at the time of their arrest.”95 Therefore, the Executor Magistrate granted the petition of habeas corpus from a call phone that she received. The Magistrate ordered the immediate release of a number of Honduran citizens, among them Judge Chévez. On September 10, 2009, the District Appellate Court upheld the writ of habeas corpus and sent certification of the ruling so that the appropriate criminal case could be brought.96 66. In the course of the disciplinary investigation against a public defender who had supported a criminal complaint filed in connection with the arrest and forced exile of President Zelaya, the Deputy Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals observed that an article was published in the newspaper “La Prensa” to the effect that “among those detained yesterday was the Anti-domestic Violence Judge Luis Chévez, wearing glasses.” The Deputy Inspector General ordered that the article be classified as number 284-IGJT-PJ-2009 and sent to the Regional Office of the Inspector of Courts and Tribunals for investigation.97 67. During the course of the investigation, statements were taken from officials in the Judicial Branch, who said that Judge Chévez had “incited judicial employees to join the demonstrations for Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales,”98 that Judge Chévez had said that he was ashamed of how the [SCJ] had allowed itself to be used” in connection with the events of June 28 and that he participated in “those movements staged to protest the current Constitutional Government.”99 68. On September 11, 2009, the Regional Deputy Coordinator went to Judge Chévez’ courtroom and advised him of various aspects of the complaint, so that he might make the necessary statement. In that inquiry, after Judge Chévez asked for a copy of the complaint, the Deputy Regional 94 Annex 19. Report of Investigation. Report prepared by Executor Magistrate Katy Sánchez. August 13, 2009. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 95 Annex 19. Report of Investigation. Report prepared by Executor Magistrate Katy Sánchez. August 13, 2009. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 96 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Case File 3078. Judgment of the District Appellate Court. Case File 71-09 ExPer-SGM-, September 10, 2009. Pages 260-262. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 97 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Case File 3078. Office of the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals. Memorandum from the Deputy Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals dated August 13, 2009. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012. 98 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Statement given by Miguel Ángel Cruz Cruz, Deputy Northwestern Purveyor of the Judicial Branch. September 3, 2009. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 99 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Statement given by Carlos Luis Rodezno. September 3, 2009. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. See also, Annex **. Statement by Mario Guillermo López Cabrera. September 8, 2009; Statement by María Critina Pazzetty. September 3, 2009; Statement by Rolando Isidro Enamorado. September 3, 2009. Attachments to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011.