- 36 Pursuant to the law, the act of filing an application for amparo does not, in itself, constitute the practice of law; however, the act of requesting a declaration of the nullity of the proceedings, as the appellant, attorney [Flores Lanza], requests at this stage of the proceedings, is practicing law and, in the opinion of this chamber, this is a violation of article 108 of the aforementioned Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts owing to the position held by the said appellant as a tenured justice of the San Pedro Sula District Appellate Court.188 111. On September 16, Ms. Flores Lanza requested photocopies of the file of the investigation against her.189 However, this was refused by the Regional Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals, “because it was not part […] of the procedure established by the Judicial Service Act and its respective Regulations, or in the rules of procedure of the Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals.”190 Moreover, the Inspectorate “clarified that [its] investigation was not final; it was subject to review by the immediate superiors and was part of a procedure established by the Judicial Service Act and Regulations.”191 112. On October 20, 2009, the Personnel Management Directorate opened a disciplinary proceeding against Ms. Flores Lanza and summoned her to appear in order to answer the charges brought against her.192 After being rescheduled several times, the rebuttal hearing was held on January 7, 2010.193 Ms. Flores Lanza presented the corresponding defense and, inter alia, proposed evidence that was subsequently admitted.194 113. On April 20, 2010, the Personnel Management Directorate recommended to the Supreme Court that it: Dismiss, without any liability for the institution, attorney Tirza del Carmen FLORES LANZA, […] for non-compliance or serious or repeated violation of some of the duties, incompatibilities and conducts established in Chapters X and XI of the Judicial Service Act, by virtue of the following: (1) Having been absent from her court office on June 30, 2009, […] on which date she was in the capital of the Republic, engaging in matters that are not inherent in the functions of her post, without any record of the respective permission; (2) Engaging in activities incompatible with the performance of her functions, by engaging in the practice of law in processing a request for a declaration of nullity filed in the [proceeding on the application for amparo]; (3) Indicating the offices of the San Pedro Sula Appellate Court as the address for receiving notifications pertaining to actions that are entirely unrelated to her sole function, which is to impart and to administer justice impartially; (4) Involving herself in activities that, as a justice, are not permitted, by appearing 188 The Chamber indicated that “the only way in which this Chamber could consider valid the actions involving the practice of law carried out by attorney [Flores Lanza] or determine that she was authorized to take such actions in the name of JOSÉ MANUEL ZELAYA ROSALES, would be that she prove that this fell within one of the following categories: 1. That she is defending a personal case, which is not the case, because she is doing so in favor of a third party; 2. That she is defending a case involving her spouse, which is not the case either, because she is not related by marriage to the third party in favor of whom she filed the application for amparo; 3. That Mr. ZELAYA ROSALES is her ward; that Mr. ZELAYA is a relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or the second of affinity, and/or 5. That the appellant is no longer a tenured justice of the San Pedro Sula District Appellate Court or is a substitute justice or a justice of the peace.” Decision of the Constitutional Chamber of September 9, 2009 (evidence file, folios 2595 and 2596). 189 Cf. Brief of September 16, 2009, signed by Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza addressed to the Inspectors of Tribunals, San Pedro Sula (evidence file, folio 2734). 190 Decision of the Regional Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals of September 16, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2736). 191 Decision of the Regional Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals of September 16, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2736). 192 Cf. Decision of the Personnel Management Directorate of October 20 2009 (evidence file, folios 2975 and 2976). 193 Cf. Decision of the Personnel Management Directorate of December 10, 2009 (evidence file, folio 2988), and record of the rebuttal hearing held by the Personnel Management Directorate of January 7, 2010 (evidence file, folios 2990 to 3011). 194 Cf. Decision of the Personnel Management Directorate of January 11, 2010 (evidence file, folios 3012 to 3013).