- 46 officials or official bodies with regard to their actions.”263 The Inspector General also found that Mr. Barrios had committed “acts that were inimical to the dignity of the administration of justice and incompatible with the exercise of his functions.”264 143. On October 9, 2009, the Personnel Management Directorate opened a disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Barrios and summoned him to answer the charges.265 On December 7, 2009, a hearing was held during which Mr. Barrios Maldonado rebutted the charges and, inter alia, proposed evidence that was subsequently admitted.266 On April 20, 2010, the Personnel Management Directorate issued its final decision and recommended that Mr. Barrios Maldonado be dismissed from his post: [F]or non-compliance with or serious violation of his duties and committing acts that are inimical to the dignity of the administration of justice, having taken part, at the invitation of the University Professors Association and the Labor Union of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, as a speaker, in a meeting held at […] that university, during which those present criticized the actions of the Supreme Court of Justice and other national authorities in relation to the events that took place before and after June 28, 2009, and because, subsequently, with his knowledge and authorization, his opinions were published in the op-ed section of the El Tiempo newspaper of San Pedro on August 28, 2009, in an article entitled “This Was Not A Constitutional Succession,” in which he was identified as a sentencing judge.267 144. On May 5, 2010, the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice approved the Personnel Management Directorate’s recommendation that Mr. Barrios Maldonado be dismissed and appointed a committee of three justices “to draw up the respective resolution and then to issue [the corresponding decision on his removal].”268 The case file contains a resolution of the same date signed by the President and the Secretary of the Supreme Court, in which, apparently following up on the orders of the plenum of the Court, it set out “the corresponding grounds, which have been approved, adding the date on which the plenary meeting had been held.”269 However, this resolution was not notified to Mr. Barrios Maldonado.270 On May 21, 2010, the presumed victims filed a joint request before the Supreme Court for reconsideration of their sanctions of dismissal, 263 According to this decision, these prohibitions are established in article 3 of the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts, sub-paragraphs (1) and (4), the latter in relation to article 53(f) and (g) and article 55 of the Judicial Service Act, and also article 172(e) and (f), and 174 of its Regulations. Cf. Decision of the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals of September 17, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1382 to 1383). 264 According to the said decision, these prohibitions are established in articles “321, 322 and 323(1) of the Constitution of the Republic; 44, 53(b) and (g) of the Judicial Service Act; 6, 149 and 172(b) of its Regulations, in addition to non-compliance with articles 1(d) and (e) and 2(d) and (f) of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees, and 3, 8, 43 and 55 of the Ibero-American Code of Ethics.” Decision of the Inspectorate General of Courts and Tribunals of September 17, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1382 to 1383). 265 Cf. Note of the Personnel Management Directorate of October 9, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1384 and 1385). 266 Cf. Record of the rebuttal hearing before the Personnel Management Directorate of December 7, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1438 to 1461), and decision of the Personnel Management Directorate of December 10, 2009 (evidence file, folios 1469 to 1471). 267 Decision of the Personnel Management Directorate of April 20, 2010 (evidence file, folio 1555). 268 This decision appears in Minutes No. 24 of the meeting initiated by the plenum of the Supreme Court of Justice on May 5, 2010, and concluded on May 7, 2010. The minutes were not notified to the presumed victims; rather a certified copy was issued at the request of Ramón Enrique Barrios and Tirza Flores Lanza on June 25, 2010 (evidence file, folios 5643 and 5644). 269 270 Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 5, 2010 (evidence file, folios 1557 to 1563). The victims and their representatives have repeatedly asserted that they were not notified of these decisions. The State has not contested this assertion and there is no record in the disciplinary files that these decisions were notified to them.