14 her position. 39 That body considered that the judge had incurred in disciplinary offenses according to the Organic Law of the Judiciary Council and the Law on the Judicial Career, which included “abuse or excessive use of authority” and the failure to comply with her obligation to “exercise due attention and diligence” in the processing of the case.40 51. On March 5, 2002 Mrs. Reverón Trujillo filed an administrative appeal for reconsideration before the CFRSJ. 41 On March 20, 2002 the CFRSJ declared that appeal inadmissible.42 52. On March 19, 2002 the alleged victim filed an appeal for annulment before the SPA, through which it also requested a precautionary suspension of the effects of the appealed act.43 53. On May 14, 2003 the SPA dismissed the claimant’s demand of suspension of the effects of the act 44 and on October 13, 2004 declared the nullity of the punishment of dismissal. It concluded that Mrs. Reverón Trujillo did not incur in the disciplinary offenses for which the [CFRSJ] dismissed her from [the] position, that is, she did not incur in abuse or excess of authority; carelessness and negligence in her role of director of the process […] and therefore, according to the legal rules in force on the date of the administrative act through which the competent body dismissed her, this Chamber declares that said decision was not lawful.45 54. Additionally, the SPA determined that the CFRSJ “invaded competences corresponding to the jurisdictional realm and in that sense, violated the constitutional guarantee to the autonomy and independence of which the mentioned punished judge was entitled to, when it issued the measure in question.”46 55. The SPA did not order the reinstatement of the judge or payment of the salaries she did not perceive. It justified its decision as follows and ordered the following reparation measures: In other circumstances this Chamber could, with the elements present in the records in the case file, order the reinstatement of the judge affected with the punishments to the position she occupied; however, it is necessary to point out that there is currently a judicial restructuring process in operation, reason for which we have agreed to submit to Public Competitive Tenders all judicial positions, including those occupied by judges who had a provisional nature. Therefore, since the appellant is included in the previously expressed situation and due to the impossibility to order the reinstatement to her position or another of the same hierarchy and remuneration, for the reasons previously mentioned, this Chamber, aware of the possible remuneration the present case deserves, ORDERS the Administration: 39 Cf. decision issued by the CFRSJ on February 6, 2002, supra note 37, folios 120 to 165. 40 Cf. decision issued by the CFRSJ on February 6, 2002, supra note 37, folios 158 to 165. 41 Cf. administrative appeal for reconsideration filed before the CFRSJ on March 5, 2002 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume VI, annex 33, piece 4, folios 2441 to 2459). 42 Cf. decision regarding the appeal for reconsideration issued by the CFRSJ on March 20, 2002 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume VI, annex 33, piece 4, folio 2467). 43 Cf. appeal for annulment against the act of dismissal filed by Mrs. Reverón Trujillo on March 19, 2002 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume VII, annex 34, folios 2521 to 2591). 44 Cf. judgment No. 711 issued by the SPA on May 14, 2003 (dossier of annexes to the respondent’s plea, Volume VII, annex 34, piece 4, folios 2729 to 2740). 45 Cf. judgment No. 01771 issued by the SPA on October 13, 2004 (dossier of annexes to the application, Volume I, annex B.5, folio 183). 46 Cf. judgment issued by the SPA on October 13, 2004, supra note 45, folio 181.