40. Having exhausted the negotiations, on December 12, 1995, a Conciliation Court was convened, consisting of three judges of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Court, a delegate representing the workers and a delegate representing the employers. 31 On February 15, 1996, said court issued a series of recommendations 32 related to the draft collective agreement and, on that same day, the conciliation process concluded. 33 41. On February 16, 1996, the STOJ requested that the First Chamber order the General Inspectorate to proceed with the count of the workers who had instituted the labor dispute to determine whether they accounted for at least two-thirds of the Judiciary and, thus declare the legality of the strike. This order was issued to the Judicial Inspectorate on the same date. 34 However, on February 19, 1996, the Judiciary filed a motion for annulment against this order. It argued that a strike was not a viable way to resolve the dispute, since the administration of justice is an essential public service and the only way to settle the conflict was through arbitration. This motion was dismissed on February 23, 1996. 35 In response to this decision, the Judiciary filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice. For its part, the General Labor Inspectorate consulted the First Chamber to determine whether the count should proceed. On February 26, 1996, the First Chamber ordered the suspension of the count until the challenges filed by the State were resolved. 36 Finally, on April 2, 1996 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the appeal filed by the Judiciary against the decision of the First Chamber to order the count of workers. 37 At the time of this decision, the strike had already ended. B.2. The strike and its subsequent characterization 42. Between March 19 and April 2, 1996, members of the STOJ went on strike. At that time, the count remained at a standstill and therefore the strike had not been declared legal. As a consequence of this strike, the Judiciary decided to stop paying the salaries of the striking employees. In response, the workers filed a motion for amparo before the Constitutional Court, which ruled in their favor on April 2, 1996 and ordered the Judiciary to pay the employees’ salaries’, provided they returned to work immediately. 38 The State asserted that the Supreme Court of Justice paid all the salaries, which was confirmed by a statement issued by the Financial Management Unit of the Accounting Office of the Judiciary. 39 31 Cf. Ruling of the First Chamber of the in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 of December 12, 1995 (evidence file, folios 3546 and 3547). 32 Cf. Ruling of the Court of Conciliation in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 February 15, 1996 (evidence file, folios 3549 to 3552). Cf. Ruling of the Court of Conciliation in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94, February 15, 1996 (evidence file, folios 3553 and 3554). 33 34 Cf. Ruling of the First Chamber of the Labor Court of Appeals in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 on February 16, 1996 (evidence file, folios 27 and 28). 35 Cf. Ruling of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 of February 23, 1996 (evidence file, folios 37 to 39). Cf. Ruling of the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court in the context of Collective Dispute No. 730-94 on February 26, 1996 (evidence file, folios 41 and 42). 36 37 Cf. Ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice, Civil Chamber on April 2, 1996 (evidence file, folios 50 to 55). 38 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court on April 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 45). 39 Cf. Official letter No. OC-438-2021/WGLS/ifgn of the Financial Management unit of the Accounting Division of the Judiciary of July 19, 2021 (evidence file, folios 3826 to 3830). 14