9. In its ruling of October 14, 2004, the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court declared the claims made in the appeal partially admissible. 7 In that decision, the Court ruled that the petitioner had not committed any of the alleged disciplinary errors for which she had been removed. The Political-Administrative Chamber indicated that “in this case there is no element that would lead one to believe that the sanctioned judge has expansively interpreted the provision contained in Article 271 of the referenced Code but, on the contrary, has interpreted it correctly, when seeking to ensure compliance, at least at the beginning of the judicial proceeding she was about to hear. Consequently, that action does not prove that the sanctioned judge committed an abuse or excess of authority nor, therefore, that she exceeded her judicial functions.” 10. With respect to inexcusable judicial error, the Political-Administrative Chamber ruled that the disciplinary body may review court proceedings when there is evidence of error. 8 In the specific case, it ruled that: Based on the foregoing, it is demonstrated that the sanctioned judge did not commit a serious and inexcusable error and that her actions were certainly justified, so much so that citizen Pablo López Ulacio never appeared at the preliminary hearing to which he was summoned so many times nor was it possible to execute the preventive detention order issued by the sanctioned judge. Accordingly, the attitude of the accused confirmed the obvious fear on the part of the appellant judge that the accused was not going to appear in her court, and thus her judicial judgment was reasonable and based on a decision issued in the legitimate exercise of her functions, i.e., the provision established in Article 271 of the Criminal Procedural Organic Law, and at no time did it constitute the serious error imputed to her by the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System, with the goal of imposing on her the maximum penalty, i.e., removal from her position. Consequently, that Commission invaded areas of jurisdiction proper to the court and in that sense violated the constitutional guarantee of autonomy and independence held by the sanctioned judge at the time she issued the order cited above. The procedural record indicates that when appellant noticed the error (ordering a place of imprisonment), she officially corrected the error before arrest of the accused was ordered. In addition, she certainly did not cause any damage to the accused, in that the procedural record does not show that he has been arrested to this day. Further, there is no evidence in the record that such action has been repeatedly committed by the sanctioned judge. Therefore, the Chamber is of the opinion that the error committed by the sanctioned judge was a simple error, that it was immediately corrected by the court and caused no damage to the parties involved in the principal case. 11. Nonetheless, the Court did not accept the claims for reinstatement and payment of salary not received. Its argument was that “currently a process of judicial restructuring is underway in which it was agreed to submit to competitive examinations all judicial positions, including those carried out by judges on a provisional basis.” Given that it was impossible to agree to reinstate the judge to her position or a similar one in terms of hierarchical level and compensation, the Political-Administrative Chamber ordered “eliminating from the file held in the archives of the Commission on the Functioning and Restructuring of the Judicial System the punishment of removal that was imposed on her.” In addition, the court indicated that “given the appellant’s status as a provisional judge up to the time of filing this appeal and in order to preserve her right to participate in the competitive examinations to which she aspires, 7 Supreme Court of Justice, Political-Administrative Chamber, Ruling of October 14, 2004, Case No. 2002-0259, Judge Rapporteur: Yolanda Jaimes Guerrero. 8 The decision states: “This Chamber has established on numerous occasions that serious and inexcusable judicial error occurs when the judge’s action cannot be justified on the basis of reasonable legal criteria, which makes it a serious error leading to the maximum disciplinary penalty, i.e., removal. This is an indeterminate and undefined legal concept and thus in each case it is necessary to weigh the attitude of a normal judge and on that basis and on the basis of the specific characteristics of the country’s legal culture establish the inexcusable nature of the court official’s actions. Thus, serious error is inexcusable and demonstrates, without further analysis, an absence of the legal training essential for suitably performing the role of judge.” 3