abide by the decision of September 5, 2007 (supra para. 96). On October 30 and 31, 2007, the forensic physician and the Ombudsman filed, respectively, appeals for annulment of the decision of October 16, 2007.158 Specifically, the Ombudsman requested that a sanction of suspension or dismissal should be imposed. On February 25, 2008, the President of the Judiciary declared that the appeals filed were unfounded. 159 On March 13, 2008, the forensic physician filed an appeal against this decision.160 On February 25, 2008, the Pre-trial and Amparo Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, declared that the appeal was unfounded.161 In this regard, the Supreme Court of Justice considered that the forensic physician’s employment relationship had ended on December 5, 2007, because such services had been eliminated throughout the Republic since the INACIF entered into functions. Therefore, it considered that “the disciplinary sanction [was] inapplicable to the said former employee.” Despite this, “the responsibility for committing gross negligence attributed to the [forensic physician had been] fully proved and established, and thus it [was] not admissible to annul the contested decision, and this [should] remain on the employment file of the Judiciary’s former employee.” 98. On October 9, 2008, the forensic physician filed an appeal for amparo against the decision of July 29, 2008. On April 30, 2009, the Constitutional Court acting as a Special Court of Amparo denied the amparo as notoriously improper.162 Lastly, on July 1, 2009, the Disciplinary Regime Unit ordered the archive of the disciplinary administrative procedure because the forensic physician had terminated his employment relationship with the Judiciary on December 5, 2007.163 VII MERITS 99. It has been alleged that the proven facts in this case constitute violations of several rights and obligations recognized in the American Convention, and also in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. This allegations will be examined in the following order: a) In Chapter VII.I, the arguments referring to the alleged violation of the rights to life, personal integrity and privacy, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz; b) In Chapter VII.II, the arguments referring to the alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection and equality before the law, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of the next of kin of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz, as well as the right to freedom of expression, movement and equality before the law, to the detriment of Claudina Velásquez, and c) In Chapter VII.III, the arguments referring to the alleged violation of the rights to personal integrity, and to respect for honor and recognition of dignity, to the detriment of the next of kin of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz. Cf. Briefs of the appeal for annulment of October 30 and 31, 2007 (evidence file, folios 3533 to 3539). Cf. Decision of the President of the Judiciary of February 25, 2008 (evidence file, folios 3568 to 3570). 160 Cf. Brief of the appeal of March 13, 2008 (evidence file, folios 3577 to 3579). 161 Cf. Decision of the Pre-trial and Amparo Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 25, 2008 (evidence file, folios 3584 to 3588). 162 Cf. Decision of the Constitutional Court acting as a Special Court of Amparo of April 30, 2009 (evidence file, folios 3595 to 3601). 163 Cf. Decision of the Disciplinary Regime Unit of the Judiciary’s Human Resources System of July 1, 2009 (evidence file, folio 3607). 158 159 34