83. With respect to the declaration of illegality of the strike by the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court, issued in response to a motion filed by the Office of the Attorney General on April 23, 1996, the STOJ filed a motion for amparo. On February 18, 1997, the Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Trials of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the motion for amparo was inadmissible, considering that the arguments presented were “confusing for lack of clarity and because of that, the appeal being filed cannot succeed.” 93 On that same day the STOJ appealed this decision; however, the Constitutional Court upheld this ruling on June 19, 1997, indicating that if the appellants considered that there were errors in the procedure to declare the strike unlawful, they could have challenged these by means of ordinary remedies. In this regard, the Constitutional Court considered that “if the appellant observed that the action of the authority being challenged entailed a violation of the law, it should have used the ordinary remedy (annulment) provided for by law to challenge the ruling being questioned, and by not doing so the appellant failed to observe the principle of definitiveness.” 94 84. At the same time, the STOJ filed an appeal against the declaration of illegality of the strike before the Supreme Court, which was rejected outright in a ruling on March 17, 1999. The Supreme Court considered that in this case Article 140 of the Law of the Judiciary should be applied, which establishes that a ruling issued by a court composed of several judges (tribunal colegiado) cannot be appealed. 95 The Union then challenged this interpretation by filing a motion for amparo, which was dismissed. 96 In fact, the procedure for declaring a strike illegal does not expressly establish the possibility of appeals. In view of this, the interpretation followed by both the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court was that the Law of the Judiciary, which provides for the impossibility of appeal against a decision taken by a collegiate court (tribunal colegiado), should be applied in a supplementary manner. However, the Union argued that the law that should be applied was Article 6 of the Law on Unionization and Strike Regulations, which states that: “The Labor and Social Welfare Courts of the economic zone where the workers have their main center of operations or workplace are competent to hear collective disputes of an economic and social nature which occur between workers of the State and the State and its decentralized and autonomous entities. In the event of disputes between workers of the Judiciary, the Labor and Social Welfare Courts of Appeals shall hear the case in the first instance, and in the second instance, the Supreme Court of Justice, through its respective chamber […].” 85. In this regard, the Court highlights the lack of clarity in the domestic regulations with respect to the procedure for declaring a strike illegal and, above all, regarding the possibility of appealing such a decision. This situation left the Judiciary employees unprotected. 97 Thus, the workers did not have effective and straightforward access to judicial protection owing to the lack of certainty and clarity regarding the appropriate remedies that should be pursued to challenge the declaration of illegality of the strike. This constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection, established in Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee rights and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 93 Ruling issued by the Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Justice on February 18, 1997 (evidence file, folio 74). 94 Ruling of the Constitutional Court of June 19, 1997 (evidence file, folio 86). Cf. Decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 17, 1999 (evidence file, folios 547 and ss.). 95 96 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court acting as a Special Court of Appeals on July 8, 1999 (evidence file, folios 562 and ff.). 97 Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 120. 26