- 38 319, 322 and 323 of the Constitution of the Republic; XXXIII of the Universal Declaration of
the Rights and Duties of Man; 1, 3, 4(i), 44, 45, 51, 53(g), 54(c), 55, 56(3), 60, 64(a), 65,
66, 73, 74, 83 and 84 of the Judicial Service Act; 1, 3, 4, 7, 9(1), 149, 157, 160, 161, 171,
172(f), 173(c), 174, 180(3), 184, 186, 187(a), 188, 189, 190, 206, and 214 of the
Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act; 3(6) and 108 of the Law on the Organization,
Functions and Authorities of the Courts; 53 of the Ibero-American Model Code of Judicial
Ethics; 10 and 20 of the Statute of the Ibero-American Judge; and 1(1), 2(d), 8(a) and 9 of
the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees.200
116. As a result of this decision, on June 30, 2010, Ms. Flores Lanza filed an appeal before the
Judicial Service Council requesting reinstatement in her post as a justice.201 Five permanent or
substitute members of the Council disqualified themselves from this proceeding, as they had heard
the proceedings on the dismissal of Ms. Flores Lanza as members of the Supreme Court of Justice
or based on relationship or friendship.202 On February 17, 2011, a hearing was held before the
Judicial Service Council, during which Ms. Flores Lanza indicated that she was unaware of the
composition of the Judicial Service Council and the identity of the members who would examine her
appeal. In addition, she referred, inter alia, to the presumed violations of due process in the
processing of the disciplinary proceedings and offered evidence to substantiate this.203
117. In view of the fact that several of its members had disqualified themselves, and the similarity
with what had occurred in the proceedings concerning Mr. López Lone (supra para. 97), on March
22, 2011, it was considered that “the Judicial Service Council had been disbanded” and the
President of the Supreme Court of Justice was asked to provide guidance. Following the latter’s
indications, the President of the Council appointed a lawyer to incorporate the Council so that the
proceedings could continue.204 Subsequently, another four members of the Council disqualified
themselves and substitutes were appointed.205
118. On August 24, 2011, the Council declared that the claim filed by Ms. Flores Lanza was
inadmissible.206 Regarding the alleged lack of competence, independence and impartiality of the
200
Note of June 4, 2010, signed by the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of Justice, transcribing the dismissal
decision of the same date (evidence file, folios 2303 and 2304).
201
Cf. Complaint received on June 30, 2010, signed by Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and addressed to the Judicial Service
Council (evidence file, folios 2291 to 2302).
202
Cf. Disqualification dated November 25, 2010, signed by Edith María López Rivera, Permanent Member of the Judicial
Service Council (evidence file, folio 2329); disqualification dated December 9, 2010, signed by Rosa Lourdes Paz Haslam,
Substitute Member of the Judicial Service Council (evidence file, folio 2331); disqualification dated of January 12, 2011, signed
by Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma, Substitute Member of the Judicial Service Council (evidence file, folio 2333);
disqualification dated February 2, 2011, signed by Raúl Antonio Henriquez Interiano, Permanent Member of the Judicial
Service Council (evidence file, folio 2337), and disqualification dated February 23, 2011, signed by Léster Ilich Mejía Flores,
Substitute Member of the Judicial Service Council (evidence file, folio 2539).
203
Cf. Minutes of the hearing of the Judicial Service Council of February 17, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2348 and 2349).
204
Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of March 22, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2759); decision of the President of
the Supreme Court of Justice of April 14, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2764), and decision of the Judicial Service Council of
April 26, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2767).
205
Cf. Disqualification dated April 26, 2011, signed by Zoe Celeste Vásquez Ordoñez, Permanent Member of the Judicial
Service Council (evidence file, folio 2769); decision of the Judicial Service Council of April 29, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2770);
disqualification dated June 22, 2011, signed by Sixto Aguilar Cruz (evidence file, folio 2782); decision of the Judicial Service
Council of June 23, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2784); disqualification dated June 24, 2011, signed by Danery Antonio Medal
Raudales (evidence file, folio 2787); decision of the Judicial Service Council of June 29, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2789);
disqualification dated July 25, 2011, signed by Jorge Alberto Zelaya Zaldaña (evidence file, folios 2792 and 2793), and
decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 1, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2794).
206
This decision was adopted “in application of the provisions of Articles 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 3
of the American Convention on Human Rights, 72, 74, 82, 90, 319 of the Constitution of the Republic; 1, 3, 4(1), 6(1),
9(e)(1), 44, 45, 53(b), 56, 67, 69 amended and 85 of the Judicial Service Act; 20(1), 23, 28(d)(1), 54, 171(b), 173(c), 179,
190, 191 and 192 of the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act; 3, 7(e)(1), 21, 24, 26, 31 and 34 of the rules of