- 39 Judicial Service Council, the Council responded with the same considerations that were described in relation to the proceedings against Mr. López Lone (supra para. 99).207 119. Regarding the merits of the matter, the Council considered that it had been proved that, on June 30, 2009, Ms. Flores Lanza has “been absent from her work without proving that she had the corresponding permission from her superior […] and that, on another occasion, […] she only stated that she had a permission granted by the President of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, [without providing] the name of this officer or producing the permission.”208 It emphasized that this conduct was contrary to her obligation not “to absent herself from her office during working days and hours, without permission,” which is “contrary to the effectiveness of the administration of justice” and, according to article 179 of the regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, constitutes a serious offense.209 120. The Council also indicated that it had been proved that Ms. Flores Lanza had violated her obligation not to exercise the practice of law.210 It pointed out that the argument that Ms. Flores Lanza “was not exercising acts of the practice of law, evaporates because it had been proved that, subsequently, […] she filed a request for a declaration of nullity […] before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice […] and it has also been proved that she came forward to file a complaint against two Branches of the State (Executive and Legislative) and against the Honduran Armed Forces.”211 121. In addition, “as regards commenting on judicial acts of other jurisdictional bodies,” the Council indicated that “the precise nature of these comments that [Ms. Flores Lanza was alleged to have made] had not been established, [so that] these grounds had not been proved sufficiently to justify her dismissal.”212 122. Article 31 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council established that this decision was not subject to appeal (supra paras. 26 and 85). On December 12, 2011, the Judicial Service Council placed on record that the sixty days that the Constitutional Justice Act granted the parties had elapsed, and no appeal had been filed; it therefore proceeded to archive the proceedings.213 C.3) Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha procedure of the Judicial Service Council; 64 of the Civil Code, and 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2842). 207 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2828 and 2829). 208 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2836). 209 According to the decision, this obligation was established in “article 45 of the Judicial Service Act in relation to article 54 of the said Act. Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2836). 210 In this regard, it cited “article 319 [of the Constitution] and, by supplementary application […] articles 85 of the Judicial Service Act, 215 of the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act and 51 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, referred to article 108 of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts,” as well as articles 50 of the Judicial Service Act and 157 of its Regulations. Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2837 and 2838). 211 In this regard, it indicated that “article 12 of the Organic Law of the Honduran Lawyers’ Professional Association established that “[t]he practice of law corresponds exclusively to lawyers and graduates in legal and social sciences, members of the Association.” Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2838). 212 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2840 and 2841). 213 Cf. Decision of the Judicial Service Council of December 12, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2888).