- 75 228. The impossibility of requesting a review of the impartiality of the trial court constitutes a violation of the obligation to ensure this right.394 A contrario sensu, if it were revealed that the court acted in a biased manner, this would constitute a violation of the obligation to respect rights, which will be examined infra in relation to the actions of the Supreme Court of Justice. The absence of clarity as regards the way in which the Council was composed prevented the presumed victims from questioning the suitability and competence of its members. Consequently, in addition to the findings in Chapter VII-1 of this judgment, the Court concludes that, in this case, the impartiality of the Judicial Service Council was not ensured adequately. B.2.c) Bias of the Supreme Court of Justice 229. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that the Supreme Court “became a protagonist” of the coup d’état (supra para. 65). In this regard, this Court recalls that the Supreme Court of Justice justified the coup d’état as a “constitutional succession” (supra para. 63). In addition, the Court reiterates its findings in paragraphs 148 to 155 of this judgment, when it concluded that the coup d’état in Honduras constituted an internationally wrongful act (supra para. 152), on the basis of which, in July 2009, the OAS General Assembly, in exercise of its competence and in application of Articles 21 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter and 9 of the OAS Charter, suspended its right to participate in the Organization (supra para. 151). The Court has concluded that the disciplinary proceedings against the four presumed victims were instituted owing to their actions in defense of democracy and the rule of law (supra para. 155). 230. The State argued that “the sanctions and dismissals of [the presumed victims] were based solely on the fact that they carried out acts that were expressly prohibited to judges by Honduran law.”395 However, in addition to its findings in Chapter VII-1 supra, this Court notes that all the conducts penalized by the Supreme Court and which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings of the presumed victims were related to the 2009 coup d’état and the actions taken by the presumed victims against what happened, in open contradiction to the position adopted by the country’s highest judicial organ. Thus, the Supreme Court of Justice ordered the dismissal of the judges and the justice, presumed victims in this case, among other reasons, for taking part in a protest against the coup d’état (Adán Guillermo López Lone, supra para. 95), for presumably having taken part in a demonstration against the coup d’état (Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, supra para. 132), for practicing law and filing a criminal complaint against the coup d’état (Tirza Flores Lanza, supra para. 115) and for offering a legal and academic opinion calling what happened a coup d’état (Ramón Barrios Maldonado, supra para. 145). 231. To the contrary, as revealed by the proven facts (supra paras. 61 to 65), the plenum of the Supreme Court participated in the coup d’état defending the legality of the deprivation of liberty of former President Zelaya and his overthrow. The Supreme Court of Justice, in a court order of June 25, 2009, responded to the request to indict former President Zelaya, and appointed an ordinary judge to hear the case.396 On June 26, 2009, through the ordinary judge it had appointed, the Supreme Court issued an order to search the home of the then President, presuming that he was responsible for perpetrating wrongful acts against the public administration and the State of Honduras.397 On June 9, 2009, a judge, “[o]n the instructions of that court of justice,” ordered the 394 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, supra, para. 66. 395 Brief of the State before the Commission dated October 14, 2010 (evidence file, folios 53 and 54) 396 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice. Record No. 34 of June 25, 2009. Available at: https://www.oas.org/es/sap/docs/ DSDME/2011/CVR/Honduras%20-%20Informe%20CVR%20-%20TOMO-II-4.pdf, and Communiqué of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 28, 2009 (evidence file, folios 11 and 12). 397 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice. Warrant for the arrest of José Manuel Zelaya. June 26, 2009. Available at: https://www.oas.org/es/sap/docs/DSDME/2011/CVR/Honduras%20-%20Informe%20CVR%20-%20TOMO-II-4.pdf