58. On March 20, 1998, the Transitory Commercial Public Law Chamber confirmed the appealed judgment. It indicated that the amparo action proceeds when "the violating act infringes a certain and imminent constitutional right that is possible to restore to the state prior to the threatened violation" and that Mrs. Moya Solís alleged facts that required an evidentiary stage, which is not applicable in a constitutional process.40 59. On April 8, 1998, the alleged victim filed an appeal for annulment against the pronouncement of March 20, 1998. She reiterated that the ratification file had not been taken into account in deciding the appeal for amparo and that the procedure followed in her case showed procedural errors, among them, that there was no order to search for the ratification file after it was not found; that when the decision of non-ratification was adopted, ten members or magistrates were present and the decision was the result of a tie, which should be settled by the President of the Chamber or in application of the guiding principle of any doubt being resolved in the employee’s favor (in dubio pro operario); and that when resolving the appeal, the Sixteenth Court had indicated that the petitioning party should have questioned the Non-Ratification Agreement, but she was never notified, only informed verbally. Regarding the ruling of the Sixteenth Court and its evidentiary action, Mrs. Moya Solís indicated that she had never requested any evidence .41 On October 29, 1998, the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice found that there was no nullity of said judgment.42 This decision was notified to Mrs. Moya Solís on September 23, 1999. VII MERITS 60. In accordance with the arguments of the parties and the Commission, in this case the Court will examine 1) the rights to judicial guarantees and the principle of legality; 2) the guarantee of a reasonable time and the right to judicial protection; and 3) political rights. VII-1 JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY 43 1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 61. The Commission argued that the procedure followed against Mrs. Moya Solís was punitive in nature and that, for that reason, the guarantees established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention were applicable. Regarding the right to know the accusation in detail and in advance, it indicated that the alleged victim was not notified of charges or accusations, nor was she informed of reports or complaints for which she could present evidence or a defense. This is because the current regulatory framework did not provide for the filing of charges or an accusation that would explain the reasons behind the decision of non-ratification, making a defense against Cf. Decision of the Transitory Commercial Public Law Chamber of March 20, 1998 (evidence file, folio 78). Cf. Appeal for annulment filed by Moya Solís on April 8, 1998 (evidence file, folios 80 to 85) 42 Cf. Decision of October 29, 1998 (evidence file, folio 87). This ruling has a dissenting vote from Judge Castillo La Rosa Sánchez, that states: “Two. - that, the resolution of non-ratification of the Plenary Chamber of the Labor Law and Labor Communities, was based on what was done in said labor file, especially in the final report of the same, which refers to a favorable report in part to the plaintiff and it is clear that the non-ratification was agreed when there was a tie of votes for ratification; Three. - that, the non-ratification agreement must be preceded by an interview of the evaluated person, making them aware of the charges brought against their performance, so that they can exercise the right of defense; that the omission or not of these requirements that must emerge from the aforementioned file of ratifications make it entirely essential to have it in view for the issuance of judgments what has not happened, indicating that the file is not found, so in its case it must be remade (sic); MY VOTE is because the hearing judgment is declared NULL […] and the appealed judgment is GROUNDLESS […] ”. Dissenting opinion of Judge Castillo La Rosa Sánchez (evidence file, folios 90 to 91). 43 Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention. 40 41 16