- 44 136. Regarding the comments made to other court employees, it indicated with regard to Mr. Chévez de la Rocha, that: His behavior in front of his colleagues was not in accordance with his office as a judge, when executing acts that were inimical to the dignity of the administration of justice, established in articles 53(b) of the Judicial Service Act and 172(b) of the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, by uttering offensive or slanderous opinions against the institutions or against any public official or employee. However, no evidence has been provided that the conduct of [Mr. Chévez) occurred as a result of his judicial tasks, or with regard to the content of the deleterious or coarse language that offended his colleagues. Also, based on the principle of proportionality that inspires all labor laws, there must be a correlation between the offense committed and the sanction imposed. Thus, the institution must prove that the judicial officer has committed an offense so serious in nature that it is impossible to continue the relationship due to the harm that his irregular action would cause to the population, and that the offense is expressly cited in the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service as warranting dismissal. Accordingly, what should have been done was to impose on the appellant one of the disciplinary sanctions established in article 56 of the Judicial Service Act, such as […] a fine or suspension, but not dismissal, which is the maximum sanction; especially if it is considered that this measure entails grave prejudice for a judicial officer, by depriving him of his only means of subsistence. In addition, it is necessary to take into account the nature of the offense, the functions performed by the offender, his degree of participation in the offense, and his appraisal and sanctions record, and the respondent did not provide any evidence concerning the conduct of the official in the course of his jurisdictional activities.250 137. Nevertheless, the Council refused to reinstate Mr. Chévez de la Rocha because: (i) it considered proved that Mr. Chévez “felt ashamed of belonging to the Judiciary and, if he is employed in the Judiciary, this is by necessity and, in view of such opinions of inconformity, it is not desirable for either of the parties to continue the employment relationship,” and (2) it considered that “there was no possibility of reinstating him, because his substitute had been appointed on September 13, 2010.251 Consequently, the Council decided to compensate Mr. Chévez.252 138. The sum determined by the Council was given to Mr. Chévez on November 23, 2011.253 C.4) Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado 139. Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado was born on May 5, 1968.254 As of June 2, 2003, he was a judge of the First Chamber of the Sentencing Court of the San Pedro Sula Judicial District.255 He 250 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folios 2236 and 2237). 251 The Council decided to declare “admissible” the complaint against the dismissal “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, 129, 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 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, folios 2238, 2239 and 2240). 252 The Council decided to compensate him with “one month of salary for each year of the claimant’s service to the Judiciary, up to a maximum of 15 years, […] to which should be added the sum corresponding to one month of salary for notice, and other compensations to which he is legally entitled, such as any pending leave, the thirteenth month payment and the fourteenth month, plus any salaries he has not received as of the date on which his dismissal came into effect on September 13, 2010, and up until the date of this decision.” Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011 (evidence file, folio 2240). 253 Cf. Memorandum of November 8, 2011, signed by the Head of the Judiciary’s Personnel Department and addressed to the Judiciary’s Special Payments Department (evidence file, folio 6537); certification of payment in settlement of entitlements and back salary issued by the Special Payments Department on June 20, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6539); letter acknowledging receipt of payment dated November 23, 2011, signed by Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha (evidence file, folio 2288).