Agreement that ordered a five-day hearing for all dismissed workers, or Article 12 of the agreement that established “union privilege or irremovability” (immunity from dismissal). In the context of this amparo proceeding, the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted a brief of considerations, in which it stated that: There is no evidence that, prior to the dismissal of the Judiciary workers referred to by the appellant, they were given the five-day hearing to which they are entitled, according to the aforementioned Collective Agreement on Working Conditions. Also, among those dismissed are members of the Executive Committee, the Advisory Council and members of branches of the Union of Judiciary Workers from the interior of the country, who as union leaders enjoy immunity from dismissal, which is extended to former union leaders, who may be dismissed only for just cause, as demonstrated by the employer in an ordinary trial before a competent court. This leads to the conclusion that the Judiciary workers were not given the corresponding hearing prior to their dismissal, which could have been carried out without any problem within the twenty days established by the First Chamber of the Court of Labor and Social Welfare Appeals in order to dismiss the workers who actually took part in the strike, provided that such circumstance had been established administratively, as stated by the relevant labor chamber. Likewise, by not pursuing an ordinary labor trial against workers who enjoy union immobility, in which the just cause for dismissal is based on the fact that they have been participants in an illegal strike movement, such circumstances constitute violations of the right to defense and due process of such workers of the Judiciary. 52 50. On February 29, 2000, the Constitutional Court denied the motion for amparo, considering that, in view of the declaration of illegality of the strike, it was not necessary to initiate motions for dismissal and that, due to this very illegality, union privilege did not apply. 53 51. On March 11, 2000, the STOJ filed a motion for clarification of the amparo ruling issued by the Constitutional Court on February 29, 2000. 54 The Constitutional Court rejected this motion in a decision on March 10, 2000. 55 52. The STOJ also filed a complaint with the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala (hereinafter “MINUGUA”). On March 15, 2000, MINUGUA published the findings of its verification process. Among other considerations, it concluded that: [T]he result of the verification process indicates that freedom of association, in its modality of trade union freedom and the right to due process of law have been impaired by the following facts and/or actions: a) The reluctance to negotiate on the part of the Supreme Court of Justice […] b) The dismissal of union leaders […] c) The dual role of employer and judge of the Supreme Court of Justice […] 52 Considerations submitted by Carlos Ignacio Herrera Cordero as prosecuting agent of the Public Prosecution Service before the Constitutional Court in the context of the motion of amparo No. 841-99, of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folios 640 to 641). 53 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court acting as Special Court of Appeals in the context of file No. 841-99 on February 29, 2000 (evidence file, folios 362 to 366). In this ruling, Judge Amado González Benítez issued a dissenting opinion in which he argued that: “the way in which they were dismissed violates due process of law for dismissing an employee of the Judiciary as established in Article 22 of the Collective Working Conditions Agreement [...]the appointing authority could well have made the employee the object of a subsequent dismissal in the case in question, in order to observe due process of law by conducting the hearing whereby it could have removed said cause by demonstrating his or her possible non-participation in the strike, thus avoiding unfair dismissals” (Separate dissenting opinion of Judge Amado González Benítez in the judgment of February 29, 2000, included in file 841-99, evidence file, folios 379 and 380). 54 Cf. Motion for clarification presented by Igmain Galicia Pimentel before the Constitutional Court in file No. 84199 on March 11, 2000 (evidence file, folios 618 and 619). 55 Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court in the context of file No. 841-99, of March 10, 2000 (evidence file, folio 621). This Court notes that there is a problem with the date given for this ruling, since it predates the filing of the motion. 17