given that there appear two signatures when, according to a authenticated plain copy of that document, there should have been three.8 According to Mrs. Maldonado, that public instrument was signed by her mother, Florinda Ordóñez Rodas, since deceased; her sister, Mary Luz Maldonado Ordóñez; and Mrs. Maldonado herself.9 In the notarized document, the mother of the alleged victim assigned to her daughters, Olga and Mary Luz Maldonado, her hereditary and possessory rights over a building and the properties left by her husband Dámaso Guadalupe Maldonado upon his death. 10 35. On April 5, 2000, in accordance with Article 76.a of the Human Rights Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations, Mrs. Maldonado was notified in writing of "the cause of dismissal of which she [was] charged,”11 which was that contained in Articles 74.4 and 74.15 of the Human Rights Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations.12 The texts of those provisions are as follows: Article 74. Causes of dismissal. Workers of the institution may be dismissed from their positions without any liability to the latter if they incur any of the following causes: … 4. If a worker commits any criminal offense or fault against property to the detriment of the institution or any of their work colleagues, or to the detriment of a third party in the workplace; also when they cause, either intentionally or through lack of care or negligence, material damage to equipment, machinery, tools, or other work-related objects; … 15. If a worker engages in unlawful acts that imply the intention to cause harm to the institution or a violation of labor norms that constitute manifest acts of sabotage of the institution's operations and activities.13 36. The petitioners recognized that Mrs. Maldonado was able to present a brief and evidence in her defense to the Ombudsman, in accordance with Article 76.b of the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations.14 On May 16, 2000, the Human Rights Ombudsman issued decision No. 81-2000, by which he dismissed Olga Maldonado from her internal position as a departmental assistant and her regular position as an educator. 15 The ombudsman found that the situation complained of: ... constitute[d] a series of legal acts and disputes of a personal nature whose outcome could seriously harm the institution of the Human Rights Ombudsman because of Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez’ employment relationship with the institution ... and that it ha[d] the obligation to avert, both within and outside the institution, the commission of acts contrary to the law, decency, and moral conventions that might undermine its prestige. 16 8 2002. Annex 2. Decision No. 81-2000 of the Human Rights Ombudsman, May 16, 2000. Appendix 1 to the initial petition of July 15, 9 Annex 1. Letter to the Human Rights Ombudsman from Olga Maldonado Ordóñez, dated June 2, 2000. Appendix 2 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 10 2002. Annex 4. Testimony in notarized document No. 470, dated October 11, 1994. Appendix 3 to the initial petition of July 15, 11 Annex 5. Article 76.a of the Human Rights Ombudsman's http://www.pdh.org.gt/accesinfo/images/downloads/2012/reglamento_de_personal.pdf 12 2002. Available at: Annex 2. Decision No. 81-2000 of the Human Rights Ombudsman, May 16, 2000. Appendix 1 to the initial petition of July 15, 13 Annex 6. Human Rights Ombudsman's Personnel http://www.pdh.org.gt/accesinfo/images/downloads/2012/reglamento_de_personal.pdf Regulations. Available at: 14 Annex 7. Petitioners brief of August 30, 2011 15 Annex 2. Decision No. 81-2000 of the Human Rights Ombudsman, May 16, 2000. Appendix 1 to the initial petition of July 15, 16 Annex 2. Decision No. 81-2000 of the Human Rights Ombudsman, May 16, 2000. Appendix 1 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 2002. Regulations. 6