29 employees joined the proceedings.44 Thus, the 257 alleged victims in this case became appellants.45 89(25) On February 21, 1996, the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice revoked the judgment appealed by the Public Attorney (supra para. 89(22) and 89(23)), reformed it and declared “totally inadmissible the action for amparo filed” by the dismissed employees. In this regard, it found, inter alia, that: Article 37 of the Act [on Habeas Corpus and Amparo (] No. 23,506) establishes that the exercise of the action for amparo expires 60 working days after the right has been affected, provided that the person concerned has been able to file the action by that date; […] that in the case sub-litis, the plaintiffs have not provided any evidence that they were unable to file the action; […] that actions for protection are not admissible in cases of termination of employment or irreparability of the harm; […] that article 28 of the above-mentioned Act […] determines that the exhaustion of prior procedures cannot be required when this has not been regulated or it has been initiated unnecessarily by the claimant; given that Resolution No. 1239-A-92-CACL stipulated that no recourse could be accepted against the resolutions issued by the Commission to Administer the Patrimony of the Congress, and it was the final instance […].46 89(26) A group of at least 2047 dismissed employees filed a special resource before the Constitutional Court against the Resolution of February 21, 1996, issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice (supra para. 89(25)).48 89(27) On June 15 and 16, 1996, a new Constitutional Court was established in Peru composed of the justices: Ricardo Nugent (President), Guillermo Rey Terry, Manuel Aguirre Roca, Luis Guillermo Díaz Valverde, Delia Revoredo Marsano, Francisco Javier Acosta Sánchez and José García Marcelo. On May 28, 1997, the Congress in plenary session, dismissed the following Constitutional Court justices: Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano. On November 17, 2000, Congress annulled the dismissal resolutions and reinstated them in their posts.49 In another case, this Court has verified that, while this destitution lasted, the Constitutional Court “was dismantled and disqualified from exercising its jurisdiction appropriately, 44 Cf. judgment of the Lima Twenty-eighth Civil Court of June 26, 1995 (file of appendixes to the application, tome I, appendix 15, folios 524, 530 to 532 and 536). 45 Although the names mentioned in paragraphs 89(21) and 89(24) add up to 266 appellants, the names of Clerque Gonzáles, José Luis; Gonzáles Guillén, Gustavo; Humantumba Vásquez, Felicita Merí; Pérez Guevara, César Dionisio; Rivera Martínez, Nelly Andrea; Sosa Álvarez, Carmen; Soto Santana, Walter Edgardo; Velásquez Machuca and Edgar Humberto are repeated, and one of them is repeated twice. Thus, there were a total of 257 appellants. 46 Cf. judgment of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of February 21, 1996 (file of appendixes to the application, tome I, appendix 16, folios 537 and 538). 47 Rosa Ysabel Murillo Orihuela, Nélida Gálvez Saldaña, Inés Belleza Cabanillas, Luz Angélica Talledo Añazco, Rommy Cecilia Rodríguez Campos, Jaime Jhonny Montoya Luna, Olimpio Huaraca Vargas, Juana Alcántara Ramos, Cecilia Victoria Gimeno Alemán, Rolando Alfonso Torres Prieto, Zoila Luz Begazo Salazar, Graciela Pedreshi de Berropi, Marco Antonio Ordónez Quispe, Rebeca Paucar Dávila, Dana Campos Alarcón, Lilia Carolina Flores Guillén, Luis Rodolfo Alboronoz Alva, José Raúl Coronado Peña, Ricardo Callirgos Tarazona, Rosalía Pérez Polo, and others. 48 Cf. judgment of the Tribunal Constitutional of November 24, 1997 (file of appendixes to the application, tome I, appendix 13, folio 511). 49 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court , supra note 11, paras. 56(3), 56(25) and 56(30).