A.11. That on the other hand, if we examine the Plenary Chamber Meeting Minutes of June 21, 1995, (…) They show that the plenary agreed ‘unanimously to place the most remote duty judge, who in this case would be the judge of the Fifth Criminal Court. However, he had turned it down for having too great a procedural workload, and therefore it is ordered to place the judge of the Fourth Court, Dr. Héctor Fidel Cordero Bernal, as head of the office of the First Criminal Court of Huánuco.’ That if we take the previous resolution into account (…) it should provide justification in this sense and also indicate that the appointment was unanimous; however, this decision by the plenary contains none of that, and in addition, it has not been signed by all the judges who form part of the plenary (…) That in addition, pursuant to statements collected from the magistrates during the visit, the Minutes do not reflect what the plenary had agreed upon, as at no time was the issue involving changing the appointment from the judge of the Fifth Criminal Court—the most remote—to the Fourth, where Dr. Héctor Cordero Bernal was in charge, ever discussed. That these imprecisions subtly deployed by the President of the Court correlate with another argument expressed by Dr. Cajahuanca Vásquez, who holds that one of the elements contributing to the appointment of Dr. Cordero Bernal was his personal characteristics and his focused manner. A.12. That in addition to all this, the attitude of the President of the Court is also symptomatic, as, with no rationale or justification for his decision, he unilaterally moved on July 17, 1995, to place Dr. Fernanado Amblódegui Amuy in charge of the office of the First Criminal Chamber of Huánuco (...) finding it strange that the official had not called on the Plenary Chamber to remove Dr. Cordero Bernal from that post.14 59. On August 3, 1995, the Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch issued a resolution proposing that the Supreme Court of Justice request that the CNM dismiss Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez. It also ordered him suspended until his disciplinary situation was resolved.15 In this regard, it stated: (...) That it has been fully demonstrated that the irregular appointment of Dr. Héctor Fidel Cordero Bernal was carried out by the Presidency of the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco (...) who, on the pretext of a medical leave (...) sought to involve the Plenary of that Superior Court with a view to granting legality to the aforementioned appointment, under an agreement that he himself distorted to himself designate a different Magistrate (...) to then have the Presidency issue an order nullifying the appointment (...) of the judge of the Third Criminal Court to continue with the office of the First Criminal Court, without the approval of the Plenary (...) That this type of malicious conduct gravely impinges on the majesty of the Judicial Branch, the reputation of our institution, and the dignity of its members, and therefore, a disciplinary sanction must be imposed that is proportionate to the gravity of the actions; (...) by virtue of the authority conferred by the part one hundred and six of the consolidated amended text of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch and application of article two hundred and eleven of the legal text cited, in view of the new laws in place, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic is asked to request of the National Council of the Judiciary the dismissal of magistrates Humberto Cajahuanca Vásquez and Héctor Cordero Bernal, pursuant to article twenty-three of law twenty-six thousand three hundred and ninety-seven, the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary (...).16 60. On October 18, 1995, the Executive Council the Judicial Branch approved the proposal for dismissal made by the Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch and asked the CNM to dismiss Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez.17 61. The Commission notes that it does not have documentation on the disciplinary process carried out against the alleged victim. In the decision of August 14, 1995, reference is made to testimony given by the alleged victim and to briefs and evidence that he submitted prior to the issuing of the decision. Annex 6. Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch. Report 116 of July 21, 1995. Brief of the State of June 25, 2019. Annex 7. Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch. Judgment of August 3, 1995. Brief of the State of June 25, 2019. 16 Annex 8. Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch. Judgment of August 3, 1995. Brief of the State of June 25, 2019. 17 Annex 9. Executive Council of the Judicial Branch, resolution of October 18, 1995. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. 14 15 10