- 37 before the Prosecutor General and filing a complaint against agents of the State based on the supposed perpetration of offenses, and (5) Making comments on judicial actions of other jurisdictional organs and the Supreme Court itself; all these conducts are incompatible with the ethical principles and legal norms that regulate the actions of judicial officials and employees.195 114. On May 5, 2010, the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice approved the recommendation of the Personnel Management Directorate to dismiss Ms. Flores Lanza and appointed a committee of three justices “to draw up the corresponding resolution and then to issue the respective dismissal decision.”196 The case file contains a resolution of the same date signed by the President and the Secretary of the Supreme Court, in which, apparently following up on the orders of the plenum, it set out “the corresponding grounds, which have been approved, adding the date on which the plenary meeting had been held.”197 However, this resolution was not notified to Ms. Flores Lanza.198 On May 21, 2010, the presumed victims filed a joint request before the Supreme Court for reconsideration of the sanctions of dismissal of those concerned, pointing out that they had learned of the decisions on May 5, through the media, but had not received the corresponding resolutions.199 115. On June 4, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the dismissal; the only justification included was the following: THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE HEREBY DECIDES: (1) To dismiss, without any liability to the institution, attorney TIRZA DEL CARMEN FLORES LANZA from the post of justice on the San Pedro Sula Appellate Court, department of Cortés, for non-compliance with, or serious or repeated violation of, some of the duties, incompatibilities and conducts set forth in Chapters X and XI of the Judicial Service Act, by virtue of the following: (a) 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 functions of her post, without obtaining the necessary leave; (b) carrying out activities incompatible with the performance of her office, by engaging in the practice of law in processing the request for a declaration of nullity filed in the proceeding on the application for amparo; (c) indicating the offices of the San Pedro Sula Appellate Court, which is the exclusive and legal domicile of the Judiciary, as the address for receiving notifications pertaining to actions entirely unrelated to her sole function, which is to impart and administer justice impartially; (d) becoming involved in activities that, as a justice, are not permitted, by appearing before the Prosecutor General to file a complaint against agents of the State for the supposed perpetration of offenses; (e) making comments on judicial acts of other jurisdictional bodies, including the [Supreme Court of Justice] itself; all these conducts are incompatible with the ethical principles and legal norms governing the conduct of judicial officials and employees. Articles 80, 82, 90(1), 303, 313(1) and (8), 318, 195 This recommendation was made, “in application of Articles 80, 82, 319(1) of the Constitution of the Republic: 1, 3, 4(1), 10, 12(a), 44, 45, 51, 53(g), 54(c), 55, 56(3), 60, 64(a), 66, 73, 74 and 77 of the Judicial Service Act; 1, 3, 4, 7, 9(1), 31, 33(a), 149, 157, 158, 161, 172(f), 173(c), 174, 180(3), 184, 186, 187(a) 188, 189, 190, 206, 207 and 210 of the Regulations governing the same Act; 3(4) of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts; 1 of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees.” Resolution No. 04-2010 of the Personnel Management Directorate of April 20, 2010 (evidence file, folio 3068). 196 This decision appears in Minutes No. 24 of the session initiated by the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 5, 2010, and ended on May 7, 2010. These minutes were not notified to the presumed victims; rather a certified copy was issued at the request of Ramón Enrique Barrios and Tirza Flores Lanza on June 25, 2010 (evidence file, folios 5640 and 5641). The decision of the Supreme Court was ratified on June 1, 2010. Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2834). 197 Cf. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 5, 2010 (evidence file, folios 3070 to 3077). 198 The victims and their representatives have repeatedly asserted that the said resolutions were not notified. The State has not contested this assertion and there is no record in the disciplinary files that these resolutions were notified. 199 Cf. Brief of the request for reconsideration received on May 21, 2011, signed by Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, Ramón Enrique Barrios and Tirza Flores Lanza and addressed to the Supreme Court of Justice (evidence file, folios 1127 and 1128).