- 41 126. On September 10, the District Appellate Court of San Pedro Sula declared the application for habeas corpus admissible, considering that Mr. Chévez de la Rocha and the other persons who had been arrested had not been advised “of the reasons for their arrest [and nor was] their right to advise that they had been arrested respected.” In addition, it took into account that, “according to his testimony, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha […] had been subjected to verbal abuse by the police authorities, and that the detention […] had not been recorded in the police station logbook.”225 In addition, the decision ordered that a copy of the document be sent “to the city’s Ombudsman so that he could file the corresponding criminal actions” and that “when the […] ruling had been notified, the corresponding proceedings should be forwarded to the Constitutional Chamber.”226 127. In parallel, on August 13, 2009, the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals ordered that an investigation be opened, ex officio, against Mr. Chévez because a newspaper article had reported on his arrest during a demonstration.227 On August 19, this investigation was joindered to the investigation against Mr. Barrios and other judicial officials (infra paras. 141 to 147).228 128. On September 11, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha “was informed of the contents of the complaint” and his statement was postponed to give him time to prepare it.229 On September 12, 2009, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha asked the Inspectorate to provide him with a photocopy of the file, “in order discover what [he] was accused of.”230 His request was refused, because Mr. Chévez had “been given verbal information on the matters to be investigated.” In addition, the Inspectorate emphasized that the inspectors had to “observe strict confidentiality in the performance of their duties.”231 On September 14, Mr. Chévez gave a statement before the Inspectorate. At that time he was questioned about his arrest, whether he had encouraged court employees to strike, and whether he had insulted other administrative employees.232 129. On September 16, 2009, the Regional Inspectors of Courts and Tribunals gave their report to the Inspectorate General and indicated that, “from the statements obtained, it is concluded that acts were committed that were inimical to the dignity of the administration of justice, pursuant to the provisions of article 53(b) and 44 of the Judicial Service Act, because [three] employees were slighted […] and they were encouraged to protest against what he considered a government de facto.”233 The report contained no conclusions with regard to Mr. Chévez de la Rocha’s arrest. On September 17, the Inspector General ratified this report and added that the fact that “he had been arrested by the National Police, owing to his presence in acts that disrupted public order,” was inimical to “the dignity and decorum of his function”; she therefore decided to forward the file to the Personnel Management Directorate, with a copy to the Supreme Court of Justice.234 225 Judgment of the District Appellate Court of September 10, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1250 and 1253). 226 Judgment of the District Appellate Court of September 10, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1253). 227 Cf. Decision of the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals of August 13, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1159). 228 Cf. Decision of the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals of August 19, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1160). 229 Cf. Record of the Inspector of Courts and Tribunals of September 11, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1200). 230 Brief of September 12, 2009, signed by Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha addressed to the Head of the Regional Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals (evidence file, folio 1198). 231 Decision of the Regional Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals of September 11, 2009 (evidence file, folio 1199). 232 Cf. Statement made by Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha on September 14, 2009, before the Inspectorate of Courts and Tribunals (evidence file, folios 1201 and 1202). 233 During the investigation, the Inspectorate took statements from individuals who Mr. Chévez de la Rocha had supposedly incited to take part in protests and to whom he had allegedly expressed his shame about how the Supreme Court of Justice had allowed itself to be used. Cf. Report of September 16, 2009, prepared by the Inspectors of Courts and Tribunals for the Northwestern Region and addressed to the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals (evidence file, folios 1378 and 1379). 234 Cf. Decision of the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals of September 17, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1382 to 1383).