- 15 Honduras; (2) the international reaction to the coup d’état and the actions taken by the OAS; (3) the position of the Supreme Court of Justice, and (4) the Association of Judges for Democracy. A.1) The coup d’état in Honduras 44. On March 23, 2009, the President of Honduras, José Manuel Zelaya Rosales (hereinafter “President Zelaya” or “former President Zelaya”), approved Executive Decree PCM-05-2009, in which he called for a popular consultation to be held by June 28 of that year at the latest. The following question would be posed in this consultation: “Do you agree that, during the elections [presidential, legislative and municipal] of November 2009, a fourth ballot box should be set up to decide on the advisability of convening a National Constituent Assembly to amend the Constitution?”47 This decree was approved despite the lack of consensus among the political parties as regards the conditions and mechanisms for amending the Constitution because, although the initial reaction to the proposed constituent assembly had been favorable, some parties considered that it should be convened after the elections and not by means of a fourth ballot box.48 In fact, the opposition perceived the issue of the decree proposing the fourth ballot box as “a way of maintaining [President] Zelaya in power, not necessarily by means of re-election (even though [President] Zelaya had stated publicly that re-election would be one of the issues on the agenda of the national constituent assembly), but rather through convening an early constituent assembly that would possibly shorten the following presidential term and facilitate, if not the re-election of [President] Zelaya, at least the continuation in power of the liberals.”49 The Truth and Reconciliation Commission considered that this consultation was illegitimate (infra para. 57), because the Honduran Constitution only admitted “partial amendments” and included “a system of ‘immutable rules’ that could not be altered by [the said partial amendments].”50 Thus, article 374 of the Honduran Constitution established the prohibition to amend the constitutional article relating to the presidential term and the one containing the prohibition to re-elect the President of the Republic.51 47 Cf. Executive Decree PCM 05‐2009 of March 23, 2009 (evidence file, folios 6919 and 6920), and IACHR, Honduras: Human Rights and the coup d’état. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 55, December 30, 2009, paras. 82 and 83. This decree was not published in the Official Gazette. Cf. Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR). Para que los hechos no se repitan: Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, July 2011, p. 132 (evidence file, folio 7408). 48 Cf. Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR). Para que los hechos no se repitan: Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, July 2011, p. 121 (evidence file, folios 7398 and 7399). 49 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR). Para que los hechos no se repitan: Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, July 2011, p. 121 and 122 (evidence file, folios 7399 and 7400). 50 Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (CVR). Para que los hechos no se repitan: Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación, July 2011, pp. 183 and 184 (evidence file, folios 7459 and 7460). 51 Cf. 1982 Constitution of the Republic of Honduras (as amended up until January 20, 2006), article 374, which establishes the following: “Under no circumstances shall amendments be introduced to the preceding article, the present article, the articles of the Constitution that concern the form of government, the national territory, the presidential term, the article prohibiting re-election of the person who served as President of the Republic regardless of the title of that office, and the article referring to those persons who are disqualified from running for the office of President in the following term.” Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/CEDIJ/Leyes/Documents/CONSTITUCI%C3%93N%20DE%20LA%20REP%C3%9ABLICA%2 0%2809%29.pdf. Despite this, this Court has noted that, on April 22, 2015, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared “the inapplicability of articles 42(5) and 239 of the Constitution of the Republic,” as well as “the partial inapplicability of articles [4] last paragraph and 374, the latter only as regards the paragraph reading: “the article prohibiting re-election of the person who served as President of the Republic regardless of the title of that office, and the article referring to those persons who are disqualified from running for the office of President in the following term.” Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 22, 2015. Available at: http://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/Documents/FalloSCONS23042015.pdf. The said articles of the Constitution establish the following: “Article 4. The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. It is exercised by three branches: the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary, which are complementary, independent and not subordinated one to the others. Alternation in the exercise of the office of President of the Republic is mandatory. The infringement of this norm constitutes a treasonable offense.” “Article 42. Citizenship is lost: […] 5. By inciting, promoting or supporting the continuity or re-election of the President of the Republic.” “Article 239. The citizen who has acted as head of the Executive may not be elected President or Vice President of the Republic. Anyone who violates this provision or proposes that it be amended, as well