- 72 (supra paras. 79 and 84), but had not been accorded the competence to decide appeals filed against rulings or decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice, the country’s highest judicial organ, on which it depended and of which it was an auxiliary entity, as mentioned above. In response to the respective arguments of the presumed victims during the domestic proceedings, the Judicial Service Council affirmed that: Although it is true that, in the provisions [of a legal and regulatory nature of the Judicial Service] it is established that the admissible remedies under the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations filed against the decisions of the Personnel Management Directorate [would be decided by the Judicial Service Council]; it is also true that there is a norm of constitutional rank, specifically article 313 of the Constitution which establishes that, among the powers granted to the Supreme Court of Justice, is that of organizing and directing the Judiciary, appointing and removing justice and judges on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Council […]; the Director of Personnel Management is not empowered to apply sanctions, fines, dismissals or suspensions to judicial officials; consequently the Personnel Management Directorate does not have the authority to issue decisions on appointments and, in particular, on dismissals, because if the decisions were issued by the Personnel Management Directorate of the Judicial Service, it would become both judge and party. Consequently, under the Constitution, this action corresponds to the Supreme Court of Justice alone and, therefore, when they are the subject of a decision by this branch of the State, officials or employees who consider themselves affected have recourse to the Judicial Service Council to file their appeals.382 221. Notwithstanding these considerations, and bearing in mind the findings in Chapter VII-1 supra, the Court concludes that the Judicial Service Council lacked the competence, established by law, to decide appeals against decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice. Moreover, owing to its nature as a dependent and auxiliary organ of the Supreme Court, it was not an autonomous and independent entity. B.2.b) Lack of impartiality of the Judicial Service Council 222. The Court takes note that the presumed victims have indicated that they were unaware of the composition of the Judicial Service Council that decided their appeals against the dismissal rulings of the Supreme Court, until they received notification of the respective decisions. In this regard, Mr. López Lone indicated: “the day I appeared [before the Judicial Service Council] there were only two members of the Council, the President and the Secretary, and I did not know, either that day or afterwards, who were the other members of the Council. I only found out when the decision was issued declaring that the appeal I had filed was inadmissible.”383 In addition, Mr. Chévez de la Rocha asserted that they “did not know who the members of that Council were, or the way in which they had been appointed. [They] supposed that this was done by the Supreme Court itself with people in whom it had complete confidence, which revealed even more [their] defenselessness.”384 Meanwhile, Ms. Flores Lanza stated that: [T]he Council was left headless; in other words, without anyone who could legally preside it; then, without anyone being aware how, or on the basis on which law, a justice of the Appellate Court presided it and she called on different judges to incorporate the Council, some of whom also disqualified themselves from incorporating it. Ultimately, a Judicial Service Council was 382 Decision of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011, with regard to Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza (evidence file, folios 2827 and 2828). See also, Decisions of the Judicial Service Council of August 24, 2011, with regard to Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado (evidence file, folios 1066 and 1067, 2225 and 2226, 3507 and 3508). 383 Statement by Adán Guillermo López Lone provided during the public hearing held in this case. 384 Cf. Affidavit made by Luis Alfonso Chévez de la Rocha on January 8, 2015 (evidence file, folio 6646).