which was the appeal for annulment, to challenge the decision. By not doing so, the appellant failed to observe the “principle of definitiveness” 45 as a prerequisite for the petition for amparo. 46. The STOJ then appealed the ruling of the First Chamber that declared the strike unlawful. On February 23, 1999, the First Chamber referred this appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice. On March 17, 1999, the Supreme Court decided that it would not hear the appeal, arguing that ruling being challenged was issued by a court comprising several judges (tribunal colegiado) and, therefore, was not appealable, 46 pursuant to Article 140 of the Law on the Judiciary. 47 47. On March 20, 1999, the STOJ filed a motion for amparo with the Constitutional Court against the decision of the Supreme Court, arguing that the Law on the Judiciary was not applicable since their right to appeal was contained in Article 6 of the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations for State Employees. The latter establishes that the Supreme Court of Justice has jurisdiction to hear in second instance collective disputes of an economic social-disputes nature involving employees of the Judicial Branch. On July 8, 1999, the Constitutional Court declared the motion for appeal inadmissible, arguing that neither the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations nor the Labor Code establish a specific procedure for declaring a strike unlawful, and the respective challenge of such a declaration, and therefore, the Law on the Judiciary should be applied, which establishes that there is no appeal against rulings issued by courts comprising several judges (tribunales colegiados). 48 C. Dismissal of employees by the Supreme Court and subsequent motions of appeal 48. On September 1, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice proceeded to dismiss 404 employees who had allegedly participated in the strike. 49 At least 18 members of the STOJ submitted evidence indicating that they had worked during the strike. 50 On September 6, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice corrected the ruling of September 1, eliminating from the list those union members who were included despite not having participated in the strike and adding other employees. 51 49. On September 25, 1999, the STOJ filed a motion for amparo against the decisions of the Supreme Court, arguing that the dismissals did not comply with Article 22 of the Collective 45 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 19, 1997 (evidence file, folio 86). Cf. Ruling of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on March 17, 1999 (evidence file, folios 547 to 549). 46 47 According to this article on the resolution of motions: “The judge shall decide the motion without further proceedings, within a period of three days after the hearing and if it has been opened for evidence, the decision will be issued within the same term after the conclusion of the evidentiary period. The decision may be appealed only in those cases in which the special laws regulating the matter do not exclude this remedy. There shall be no appeal when the motion is decided by a court comprising several judges (tribunal colegiado). The time limit for resolving the appeal, when it is admissible to file it, shall be three days.” (evidence file, folio 502). 48 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court acting as a Special Court of Appeals the July 8, 1999 (evidence file, folios 562 to 575). 49 Cf. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 1, 1999 (evidence file, folios 3583 to 3604). 50 In its Merits Report, the Commission indicated that it had information that the following employees had worked during the strike period: 1) Ajquejay Xec Rafael, 2) Arias Carlos Enrique, 3) Arriola Conde Luis René, 4) Caxaj Turnil Mario Juan Humberto, 5) Ejacalon Majzul lrrael, 6) lllescas Garcia de Suarez Rosa Nelly, 7) Leonardo Carlos Antonio, 8) Leonardo Oscar Moises, 9) López Arias Edgar Arturo, 10) López Giran Sandra Nineth, 11) Méndez Rodas Rolando Efraín, 12) Morales Matias Edgar Romeo, 13) Moya Ruiz Gloria Marina, 14) Ortiz Domínguez Edna Araceli, 15) Portillo Dora Carolina, 16) Quevedo Quezada de Marroquín Evelin Marleny, 17) Reyes Martínez, María Victoria and 18) Soto Godoy Sergio Eduardo (Merits Report, folio 23). 51 Cf. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 6, 1999 (evidence file, folios 358 to 360). 16