- 73 formed without any legal basis that, in [her] opinion, was totally spurious and without any legitimacy, and this was the organ that took the final decision on the appeal filed.385 223. Owing to the way that the Judicial Service Council was composed386 and the way the disciplinary proceedings to decide the appeals filed by all the presumed victims were held, an ad hoc Judicial Service Council had to be set up, without the justices of the Supreme Court who had taken part in the dismissal rulings (supra paras. 79, 96 to 98, 116 to 117, 133 and 146). However, it is unclear what norms or procedures were followed by the President of the Council to incorporate this organ, after most of its members had disqualified themselves. The disciplinary files contain the disqualifications and also the appointments of the new members of the Judicial Service Council. These appointments were apparently notified to the presumed victims by means of “notice boards” [tablas de aviso].387 According to the decisions of the Judicial Service Council, the acts appointing new members of the Council were considered to be merely procedural in nature, so that they could be notified by this “notice board” mechanism.388 The Court observes that, regardless of the nature of these appointments as merely procedural, the norms and selection procedure used, and the final composition of the Judicial Service Council are unclear from the files. The records on the appointment of those who finally incorporated the Council do not reveal the position or office of these persons in the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service, if applicable, or the criteria or procedures that the lawful President of the Council used to select them. This situation prevented the presumed victims from being able to assess their suitability and competence, and to determine if there were grounds for recusal, in order to be able to exercise their right of defense. 224. In this regard, it should be pointed out that the mechanism of recusal has a dual purpose: on the one hand it acts as a guarantee for the parties to the proceedings and, on the other hand, it seeks to grant credibility to the functions of the jurisdiction. Indeed, recusal gives the parties the right to call for the separation of a judge when, above and beyond the personal conduct of the judge questioned, demonstrable facts or convincing evidence exist that give rise to well-founded fears or legitimate suspicions of his lack of impartiality, thus leading to his decision being seen as motivated by reasons above and beyond the law and that, consequently, the functioning of the 385 Affidavit made by Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza on January 7, 2015 (evidence file, folios 6668 and 6669). 386 According to article 8 of the Judicial Service Act, the Council should be composed of five permanent members and three substitute members appointed by the Supreme Court of Justice at the proposal of its President: two justices of the Supreme Court, one justice of the Appellate Courts, one ordinary judge, and one member of the Public Prosecution Service. In addition, this article established that: “[t]he substitute members shall be freely appointed by the court. […] The justice of the Supreme Court of Justice appointed to the Council who has served the longest in the Judiciary shall be its President.” Judicial Service Act, article 8 (evidence file, folio 4152). 387 Cf. Notifications using the notice board, signed by the Council’s Secretary in the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado dated February 4 and 10, March 30, May 4, June 4 and August 3, 2011 (evidence file, folios 618 to 621, 1013, 1014, 1029 to 1031, 1036, 1825 to 1830, 2173, 2174, 2186, 2187, 2197, 2198, 2341, 2342, 2346, 2761, 2762, 2776 to 2778, 2786, 2791, 2797, 3128 to 3130, 3133, 3459, 3460, 3468, 3469 and 3481). 388 The decisions of the Judicial Service Council in the proceedings held against the presumed victims indicate: “an examination of the [claimant’s] request to be reinstated reveals that it does not include an email address, or telephone number and does not indicate the place where notifications may be made, so that the provisions of article 33 of the rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council were applied. These relate to notifications and establish how they shall be made, as follows: (1) Personally, to the head of the entity against which the claim has been made, of the decision in which it is decided to process the claim, or to advise him of the first decision that has been taken; (2) Orally, decisions issued at the hearings. It shall be understood that these notifications shall have all the desired effects, from the moment they are issued, and (3) By means of the Notice Board, decisions that are merely procedural, when they were not issued during a hearing. And an examination of the case file reveals that, on the date of the hearing for proposing evidence, the claimant was notified of the decisions taken at that hearing, and that the other notifications were executed by means of the court order affixed to the Council’s Notice Board, because they were merely procedural decisions; thus, the celerity of the proceedings is ensured, by not being left to the discretion of parties who intervene in them.” Cf. Decisions of the Judicial Service Council in the disciplinary proceedings against Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado (evidence file, folios 1069, 1070, 2228, 2229, 2830, 2831 and 3510), and Rules of procedure of the Judicial Service Council, article 33 (evidence file, folio 218).