14 [Judiciary Career Act].” It requested that “the sanction of removal from office [be] imposed on them.”48 38. On October 30, 2003, the CORJS decided to remove four of the five members of the First Court. Regarding Judge Evelyn Marrero it declared “the sanction to be impossible to implement,”49 because she was eligible for retirement. Later, after a recourse to reconsider its own decision was brought by Judge Luisa Estella Morales, the CORJS set aside its own sanction that she be removed from office and ordered her retirement to be processed.50 39. Judges Apitz and Rocha brought, against their sanction, a hierarchical recourse51 before the Plenary Chamber of the STJ wherein they alleged the CORJS lacked jurisdiction to remove them from office, but the recourse was refused.52 They also brought an appeal to the judiciary for annulment of the removal decision, together with a remedy for precautionary amparo before the CPAM, alleging, inter alia, the violation of the right to be tried by their natural judge, of the right to defense and to due process, of the right to be presumed innocent, of the independence of judicial office, and arguing misuse of power.53 The amparo was rejected and, to date, the appeal for annulment has not been determined on the merits. 40. After the members of the First Court had been removed from office or had retired, a newspaper article pointed out that “[t]he First Court […] was left vacant.”54 According to an affidavit included in the instant file, “[a]fter the judges of the First Court were removed from office, it remained inactive for eight months, until under an order of the [STJ] two courts were created for such instance and their respective judges and deputy judges were appointed.”55 In a press article published in April, 2004 (six months after the Judges’ removal from office) it is reported that “[o]n account of the fact that the First Court […] remains closed, the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the [STJ] established an alternative procedure to stop the 48 Cf. accusation before the CORJS of October 7, 2003 issued by the IGC (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.3.b, pp. 1036 to 1047). 49 Cf. order of October 30, 2003, delivered by the CORJS, File 1052-2003 (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.3.c, pp. 1051 to 1089). 50 Cf. order of December 11, 2003, delivered by the CORJS, File 1052-2003 (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.3.f, pp. 1160 to 1169). 51 Cf. hierarchical appeal brought by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha on November 13, 2003, to the Plenary Chamber of the STJ (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.3.d, pp. 1093 to 1112). 52 Cf. judgment No. 23 of September 8, 2004, delivered by the Plenary Chamber of the STJ (Evidence file, Book II, Appendix C.13, pp. 717 to 724). 53 Cf. annulment appeal brought together with a precautionary amparo by Messrs. Apitz and Rocha on November 27, 2003, to the CPAM (Evidence file, Book III, Annex B.3.e, pp. 1115 to 1158). 54 Cf. newspaper article entitled “Corte Primera está acéfala” [“The First Court is vacant”], published on November 4, 2003 in El Universal (Evidence file, Book IV, Annex C, p. 1315). In such article, public statements by Mrs. Ruggeri are quoted, where she says: “The First Court is left without judges, to whom should we hand it over?” 55 Cf. declaration before a public notary (affidavit) by Mr. Edgar José López Albujas on January 17, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, p. 878). In her turn, Mr. Ruggeri stated that “after we were removed from our positions, another unusual and painful event took place, that is that the court was kept closed, without any judicial activity, for a period of almost four months, for no judges were appointed to take our places, thereby hindering defense to a very high degree. Although some employees remained at their posts, there were no judges to determine judicial matters.” Cf. affidavit by Mrs. Ruggeri, supra note 33.