56 times and in all places” (Article 44 of the Judicial Career Service Act and Article 149 of the Regulations Governing the Judicial Career Service Act); not engaging in “acts inimical to the dignity of the administration of justice”, such as “engaging, either directly or indirectly, in activities unbecoming the dignity of the office” (Art. 53 (g)) of the Judicial Career Service Act and 172 (f) of the Regulations Governing the Judicial Career Service Act); “serving his office with dignity, while refraining from any conduct at variance with the seriousness and decorum that it demands,” “avoiding indecent places,” participating in acts “that can disrupt public order” (Article 1 of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees); and “comporting oneself as a model citizen, so that there can be no question as to one’s balanced judgment, prudence and the thoughtfulness of one’s decisions” (Article 8 of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees). 181. In the Commission’s view, the descriptions of the grounds for dismissal, such as those cited above, are stated in sweeping and yet vague terms and thus give the authorities charged with enforcing them an ample margin of discretion. The Commission therefore considers that they do not conform to the standards of predictability required under Article 9 of the Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1 and 2 thereof. c. Grounds that can involve the lawful exercise of other rights 182. The Commission also notes that one set of articles invoked by the Supreme Court concerns grounds for disciplinary action whose content more closely approximates the conduct of the alleged victims. The Commission will now turn its attention to those articles. 183. The Commission observes that the decisions to dismiss judges López Lone and Chévez de la Rocha and Magistrate Flores Lanza invoked Article 319 of the Constitution. That article reads as follows: Article 319. Judges and magistrates shall provide their services to the Judicial Branch exclusively and shall not therefore practice the legal profession independently, nor may they provide legal counsel or advice to any person. This rule does not apply to teaching or (ad hoc) diplomatic functions. Judicial officials and auxiliary personnel in the Judicial Branch, from the judicial and administrative areas alike, shall not, under any circumstances, participate in partisan activities of any kind, except to cast their personal vote. Nor may they unionize or go on strike. 184. As for the application of the first paragraph of Article 319 to the conduct of Magistrate Tirza Flores Lanza, the Commission notes that the contents of both, the criminal complaint and the request for nullification of the proceedings conducted on the petition she filed seeking amparo relief, could be understood as activities of defense of human rights in the context of the events associated with the coup d’état. 185. The constitutional prohibition is embodied in Article 108 of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts and Article 157 of the Regulations Governing the Judicial Career Service Act. The Judicial Career Council observed that Article 12 of the Organic Law of the Honduran Bar Association provides that the practice of solicitorship is the exclusive purview of “attorneys and persons with degrees in legal and social sciences who are members of the Bar”; Article 11 of that law provides