43. On April 23, 1996, the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation filed a motion before the First Chamber for the purpose of securing a declaration of illegality of the strike. 40 As grounds for its request, the Attorney General’s Office argued, among other things, that: In accordance with Article 116 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations for State Employees, and the Labor Code, in order to hold a strike it is necessary to comply with the requirements indicated in said legal instruments, which were neither satisfied nor complied with and on the contrary were violated with the de facto, illegitimate and illegal strike, carried out by workers of the Judiciary. This undoubtedly violated the procedure established by the specific law intended to address this kind of dispute, which was totally unnecessary, unproductive and illegal, especially in the case of an essential public service. 41 44. On May 13, 1996, the First Chamber declared this motion admissible and ruled that the strike action spearheaded by members of the STOJ was “illegitimate.” On this point, it dismissed the argument presented by the STOJ according to which the workers were not on strike but in permanent General Assembly, making use of their constitutional right of peaceful resistance, considering that such argument lacked legal standing. It also granted the Supreme Court of Justice a period of 20 days to determine who had participated in the strike and to implement the dismissals. In this regard the Chamber determined that: In the case at hand, it merely falls to this court, under the aforementioned provision [244 of the Labor Code] to set a period of twenty days for the employer, which has the power to terminate labor contracts, to determine the workers who actually went on strike. This is a situation that must be established administratively in a precise manner after a review of the lists that were provided as evidence, since an examination of these reveals certain inaccuracies that could negatively affect the rights of workers who did not suspend work and are included in the list. 42 B.3. Remedies to challenge the ruling on the illegality of the strike 45. On May 23, 1996, the STOJ filed a motion of amparo against the declaration of unlawfulness of the strike. This motion was ruled inadmissible on February 18, 1997, by the Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Justice. The chamber considered that “[R]eading the transcribed documents shows that they are confusing for lack of clarity and therefore, the amparo action being filed is not viable.” 43 On that same day, the STOJ appealed this judgment; however, on June 19, 1997 44 it was upheld by the Constitutional Court. Among other arguments, the Constitutional Court stated that if the appellant (the STOJ) considered that the action of the challenged authority violated the law, it should have used the ordinary remedy, 40 Cf. Motion of illegitimacy and illegality of the de facto strike agreed and carried out by members of the STOJ filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation before the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court on April 23, 1996 (evidence file, folios 3559 to 3574). 41 Motion of illegitimacy and illegality of the de facto strike agreed and carried out by members of the STOJ filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation before the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court on April 23, 1996 (evidence file, folio 3561). Decision of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 the May 13, 1996 (evidence file, folios 60 and 61). 42 43 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Trials, of February 18, 1997 (evidence file, folio 74). 44 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 19, 1997 (evidence file, folios 80 to 87). 15