100. On January 22, 2001, the alleged victim was summoned to the “Process of Evaluation and Ratification, year 2001 – Phase Three”, in the communication of summons reference was made to the Agreements of the Plenary of the CNM of November 15, 2000 and January 10, 2001. 95 Ms. Rodríguez Ricse stated that she was never summoned for a personal interview or charged. 96 101. On July 13, 2001, through Supreme Resolution No. 095-2001-CNM, the CNM decided the non-ratification of Ms. Marta Rodríguez and the cancellation of her corresponding appointment and title. 97 The decision is not substantiated. 102. On December 11, 2006, Ms. Rodríguez Ricse filed a writ of amparo against the decision of non-ratification in which she requested that official communication No. 565-SG-CNM-2001 of July 13, 2001 be declared inapplicable, as well as CNM Resolution 095-2001-CNM and that she be reinstated in the position she had held and that the rights inherent to the position be recognized. 98 On December 18, 2006, the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón declared the writ of amparo inadmissible. 99 103. On January 11, 2007, Ms. Rodríguez filed an appeal in which she requested reversal of the contested decision on the basis that “she was not summoned to a prior hearing, no charge was presented to [her] against which she could defend [herself]”. She pointed out that “in her professional career [she has] always performed with rectitude and with respect for the legal and constitutional norms when resolving proceedings that she [has] heard”. She also emphasized that the State recognized in a friendly settlement agreement signed by the Ministry of Justice that "in the process of ratification of the Magistrates of the Judiciary, serious irregularities have been incurred that affect the right to due process." 100 On June 22, 2007, the First Civil Specialized Chamber of the Supreme Court of North Lima declared the appeal inadmissible, arguing that the time period for filing the amparo action had expired. 101 104. Finally, on August 29, 2007, Ms. Rodríguez filed a constitutional appeal against the previous decision before the Constitutional Court. 102 On December 20, 2007, the Constitutional Court declared the claim inadmissible for the untimely filing of the action, since upon filing the claim on December 11, 2006, the period provided for in Article 44 of the Constitutional Procedural Code had expired, having exceeded the statute of limitations and, additionally, the continuous nature of the affectation was not proven. 103 VIII MERITS 105. The Court will analyze in the merits of the case whether the State is responsible for the alleged violations of due process committed against the alleged victims, two judges and two 95 Cf. Communication of the Call for the Evaluation and Ratification Process for the year 2001, Third Phase, published on January 22, 2001, supra, and Resolution of the National Judicial Council No. 095-2001-CNM of July 13, 2001, supra. 96 Cf. Initial petition of Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse before the Inter-American Commission of May 22, 2008 (evidence file, pages 1181 to 1194). 97 Cf. Resolution of the National Judicial Council No. 095-2001-CNM of July 13, 2001, supra. 98 Cf. Writ of amparo before the Constitutional Court filed by Marta Rodríguez Ricse against the National Council of the Judiciary filed on December 11, 2006 (evidence file, pages 3563 to 3573), and Order of the Constitutional Court issued, in file No. 5124-2007-PA/TC of December 20, 2007 (evidence file, pages 2809 and 2810). 99 Cf. Order No. 1 of the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón of December 18, 2006 (evidence file, f. 107). 100 Cf. Appeal filed by Mrs. Rodríguez Ricse against the Judgment of the Combined Court of Puente Piedra, Santa Rosa and Ancón of January 11, 2007 (evidence file, fs. 3576 to 3580). 101 Cf. Order of the First Specialized Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of North Lima of June 22, 2007 (evidence file, fs. 109 to 111). 102 Cf. Constitutional tort appeal filed by Marta Rodríguez Ricse on August 29, 2007 (evidence file, fs. 3586 to 3594). 103 Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Court of December 20, 2007, issued in file No. 5124-2007-PA/TC, supra. 27