received "any termination order, or any communication in writing, informing [her] of the nonratification". She was simply prevented from continuing to work due to not having been ratified. She also indicated that the only document that had been delivered to her in relation to the ratification process was a memorandum of August 9, 1982, signed by the Secretary of the Ratifications Commission.26 47. On October 12, 1983, the Plenary Chamber for Employment of the Supreme Court of Justice found the appeal filed against the “agreement of the Plenary Chamber of the Labor and Labor Communities Court that decides not to ratify her,” as unfounded. It argued that the Ratifications Commission would have verified “serious deficiencies in the performance of her duties, verifying that a record did not bear the signature of the judge, but that of the Secretary; having authorized a proof of notification when the date of notification does not appear in the file; not having complied with official notices that were ordered in records; having failed to write down the dates on which the consignments were made, as well as the deliveries and did not write down the number of the certificate or the quantity; therefore, the appellant has not fully complied with the performance of her duties. Similarly, the appellant has not complied with paying the debts incurred, a situation that damages the Court’s image”.27 C.2 First appeal for amparo 48. On February 17, 1984, Mrs. Moya Solís filed a writ of amparo against the Supreme Resolution of October 12, 1983. She maintained that the Supreme Court's decision had been based on a negative report of her duties, of which she was only aware when she was notified of the decision on the appeal for review. Mrs. Moya Solís also disputed the claims that she had performed poorly in the duties of her position.28 49. On June 14, 1985, the Sixteenth Civil Court of Lima found the writ of amparo inadmissible. It established that the petitioner's non-ratification did not constitute a violation or threat of violation of a constitutional or fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution.29 50. On July 1, 1985, Mrs. Moya Solís appealed the judgment and requested that the superior officer rule on the merits of the case.30 On September 2, 1985, the Third Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the decision of June 14, 1985.31 idea of my evaluation as Clerk; which was denied by the Commission, despite being legislated as an obligation. // 5. I have not been allowed to report in writing about my activity in the Jurisdiction […]. 7. - The Evaluating Commission and the Magistrates who have decided on the issue that I challenge and whose review I request, have at no time made me aware of my 'demerits', my 'shortcomings’, my 'errors', my ‘defects' […]. This silence made it impossible to present evidence in my defense against the possible charges that may be made.”. Cf. Appeal for review filed by Moya Solís before the Supreme Court on September 21, 1982 (evidence file, folios 16 to 17). Cf. Appeal for review filed by Moya Solís before the Supreme Court on September 21, 1982 (evidence file, folio 19). 26 Cf. Resolution N° 752-82 of the Plenary Labor Chamber of the Supreme Court of October 12, 1983 (evidence file, folio 22). 27 Cf. Amparo Action against Resolution of October 12, 1983, filed by Moya Solís on February 17, 1984 (evidence file, folio 25). 28 29 Cf. Judgment of June 14, 1985 (evidence file, folio 30). 30 Cf. Appeal filed by Moya Solís, on July 1, 1985 (evidence file, folio 32). 31 Cf. Judgment of September 2, 1985 (evidence file, folio 34). 14