49. Finally, in its decision, the Juvenile Court considered that the girls had been heard by the court and that, in the last hearing, dated October 8, 2003, “R. and V. expressed their desire to return to live with their mother, and in the case of M. only a slight preference for the mother was detected.” In this respect, the court observed that the statements made by the girls during the hearing had been given consideration, but did not influence the court’s decision due to their young age and the possibility that their opinions might be affected “artificially by outside factors that influence them, distort them, or make them unsuited to the proposed purpose.” 63 4) the father Appeal to the Court of Appeals of Temuco and injunction granted in favor of 50. Pursuant to the decision issued on October 29, 2003, the Juvenile Court of Villarrica ordered that the girls be handed over to their mother on December 18, 200364. However, on November 11, 2003, the girls’ father filed an appeal against the court’s Decision and subsequently a petition for temporary injunction [solicitud provisional de no innovar], arguing that complying with the decision would mean a radical and violent change in the girls’ current status quo65. 51. On November 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals of Temuco granted the injunction, maintaining custody with the father66. With respect to this injunction, Ms. Atala filed a disciplinary complaint against two members of the Court, based on the grounds of recusal and disqualification.67 Chile’s Supreme Court of Justice ruled on her complaint on July 2, 2004, declaring by a majority vote that there was no fault or abuse on the part of the Judges. Notwithstanding this decision, some members of the Court "almost issued a severe warning to the judges being challenged due to the omission for which the complaint was filed.”68 52. On March 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Temuco, without the two Judges who had withdrawn from the proceeding (supra para.51), unanimously upheld the decision appealed by the girls’ father, sharing the considerations of the lower court judge, and rendered without effect the injunction granted on November 24, 200369. The Court of Appeals did not put forward new grounds and fully upheld the lower court’s decision. 63 Decision of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of October 29, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2591, 2594, 2595). 64 Court Order of the Juvenile Court of Villarrica of November 5, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume II, page 933). 65 Appeal filed by Mr. López Allendes, on November 11, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2614 to 2632) and Petition for Temporary Injunction filed by Mr. López Allendes on November 22, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, pages 2634 to 2636). 66 Granting of injunction by the Court of Appeals of Temuco, November 24, 2003 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2638). 67 On January 7, 2003, the Rapporteur of the Court of Appeals of Temuco certified that "Judge Archibaldo Loyola had disqualified himself from hearing the case and that Judge Lenin Lillo Hunzinker had considered that the grounds for recusal, stipulated in Article 196 of the Organic Code of Courts, applied to him, insofar as he had prior knowledge of the case, given that he had participated in an investigation during the extraordinary visit to the Juvenile Court of Villarrica". See record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2640. 68 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, July 2, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2645). 69 Judgment of the Temuco Court of Appeals, March 30, 2004 (record of appendices to the application, volume V, page 2643). 20