- 92 C.1) Restitution
292. The Commission asked the Court to order the State to: “[r]einstate the victims in the
Judiciary, in a post similar to the one they held, with the same remuneration and social benefits and
a rank equivalent to one they would have had today had they not been dismissed, for the time that
remained of their term of office.” If, for good reason, their reinstatement was not possible, the
Commission asked that the State pay compensation. According to the Commission, the
reinstatement in their posts was “essential as a message to the community of judges that, even in
the context of the breakdown of the institutional framework, it is necessary to continue defending
democracy and the strict application of the law.
293. The representatives asserted that the dismissal of the victims was the result of proceedings
that harmed their fundamental rights and freedoms, so that “the appropriate and essential measure
to redress the violations of their basic rights is reinstatement in their posts.” They also underscored
that the dismissals had a profound effect on the victims, “because their personal and professional
aspirations revolved around the exercise of their judicial mandate.” They asked that reinstatement
include the right of the victims to enjoy “the remuneration that would have corresponded to them
on the day they receive this, as well as all the corresponding social benefits and rank, respecting
their geographical location and judicial specialization, as well as the indefinite nature of their
appointment.” Additionally, they asked that the State be ordered to calculate the years the victims
had been out of office as if these had been years worked, so that their rights to retirement and to a
pension would not be impaired. Furthermore, they argued that “the reasons [for not reinstating the
victims] that violated human rights, as in the case of Judge Chévez, could not be deemed
objective.” They also considered that the Supreme Court of Justice had broad authority to create
posts and chambers to place the victims.
294. Furthermore, in their final written arguments, the representatives referred to the dismissal of
Judge Barrios Maldonado, and indicated that “insofar as the Court […] finds that the use of ethical
codes as disciplinary instruments violates the principle of legality, and that their use subsists at the
present time, pursuant to the iura novit curia principle, the Court would be authorized also to order
the reinstatement” of Judge Barrios Maldonado.
295. The State emphasized that Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado remained in office, while Luis
Alonso Chévez de la Rocha had been paid the social benefits to which he was entitled. Regarding
Adán Guillermo López Lone and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, the State indicated that it was
inadmissible to award them the measures of reparation requested, “because their actions were
evidently politicized, and they committed offenses that are clearly established in the laws and
regulations” of Honduras.
296. The Court notes that, in their affidavits, the victims indicated that reinstatement in their posts
was essential in order to obtain adequate redress. Thus, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha indicated that “the
foremost right that [he was] claiming is to be reinstated in [his] post in the same court and […] in
the same city, with the same rights as the other judges.” Meanwhile, Ms. Flores Lanza stated that
financial compensation instead of reinstatement “would not signify true reparation.” In addition, Mr.
López Lone considered that “reinstatement […] is a primordial act [because] it would represent full
implementation of the justice [they had] sought.” Furthermore, the psychologist, María Sol Yáñez,
recommended that the victims be reinstated in the Judiciary, with no negative consequences on the
part of the institution and their colleagues, in the same place, and under the same conditions, and
that measures be taken to avoid the victims being harassed or stigmatized.
297. The Court determined that the dismissal of Judges Luis Chévez de la Rocha and Adán
Guillermo López Lone and Justice Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza was the result of disciplinary