83 general, supported the de facto authorities by defending restrictive measures at the expense of protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law […]343. 282. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that: The response of the Judicial Branch and the SCJ in particular to the violations of human rights was unsatisfactory and in several respects violated the right to judicial protection recognized in Art. 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. They failed to order a precautionary suspension and did not grant any of the 79 petitions of amparo filed against acts of the de facto government, not even the 36 petitions for amparo filed against the decree that restricted rights, issued on September 22, 2009 (PCM-M-0162009), which had ordered flagrant violations of human and constitutional rights. The decisions on the petitions filed to challenge decree No. PCM-M-016-2009 were held up until the decree was revoked by the political power, thereby leaving Honduran citizens completely defenseless. Furthermore, the decisions still pending on the petitions of amparo filed in connection with the arrest and deportation of President Zelaya, on the actions of Police and the Army against various media outlets and on restrictions of freedom of movement, all filed between June and October 2009, have been delayed to this day. The conduct of the SCJ puts in sharp contrast the speed and diligence applied to protect General Vásquez Velásquez, as opposed to the multiple difficulties and delays imposed in the case of petitions of amparo filed by other Honduran citizens. The day the Honduran Judiciary protects all citizens as efficiently as it did in the case of the general, will be the end of impunity in Honduras. 283. The foregoing makes plain that the SCJ did not function as the guarantor of democratic constitutional legal order; instead, through its various public pronouncements, it created serious doubts as to its impartiality at that time. Thus, for example, on the day of the coup, June 28, 2009, the Judicial Branch issued a press release addressed “to the Honduran people and the international community, on the occasion of the events that occurred this day, Sunday, June 28, 2009.” In that press release, the Judicial Branch reported that in its opinion, “the Armed Forces, as defenders of the primacy of the Constitution, have acted to protect the rule of law by requiring that law be observed by those who have publicly come out against and acted against the provisions of the Constitution.” Similarly, in its report titled Honduras: Human Rights and Coup d’État, the Commission observed that “the Supreme Court of Honduras consistently den[ied] the existence of those violations. Inactivity and tolerance enable[d] the repetition of human rights violations with impunity.”344 284. The IACHR must again point out that this crisis and the patterns of conduct herein described were the context for the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the alleged victims in this case. Given the circumstances and the vague and general provisions invoked, the proceedings against the alleged victims had to have instilled fear and self-censorship among other judicial officials, who knew that they could face the same fate at any time. 343 United Nations. Human Rights Council. A/HRC/13/66. Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violations of human rights in Honduras since the coup d’état on 28 June 2009. March 3, 2010, paragraphs 67 and 68. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-66.pdf 344 IACHR. Honduras: Human Rights and Coup d’état, 2009. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 55. December 30, 2009. Paragraph 15. Available at: http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Honduras09eng/Toc.htm