52 194. Judge Luisa Estella Morales Lamuño, who had initially been removed from office together with the other three judges filed a recourse for reconsideration of the decision, and this was resolved when the CORJS decided “to set aside the disciplinary sanction of removal from office” against her. The CORJS arrived at this conclusion because it considered that the judge had complied with the requirements for special retirement before the start of the disciplinary procedure.209 195. Accordingly, the Court observes that there was a difference in treatment between the three judges who were removed from office and Judges Marrero and Morales, since the dismissal sanction was never imposed on the former, and was revoked in relation to the latter, based on the “binding legal opinion” of the Chamber for Constitutional Matters.210 Consequently, the CORJS did not impose the sanction corresponding to the disciplinary infringement in the case of the judges who complied with the requirements to retire before they committed the error. 196. The Court notes that the victims in this case did not comply with the requirements of age and years of service to retire.211 In this regard, it might be considered that the victims were not in a situation of equality with Judges Morales and Marrero -who did comply with these requirements- that would justify a similar treatment. 197. However, the conduct of the five judges fell within the factual assumption of the norm established in the already cited Article 40, part 4, because they had agreed unanimously to hand down the judgment that was declared to constitute an inexcusable judicial error. The question raised therefore is whether compliance with the requirements for retirement introduced a difference between two groups of persons that should have been taken into consideration for the purposes of the disciplinary provisions, i.e. to assess judges’ suitability for the exercise of public office. The Court finds that retirement is a factor that is completely unrelated to assessment of suitability for the exercise of public office, as well as to the ascertainment, qualification, and imputation of the facts that caused the process of destitution. The Court finds that the five judges in this case had an identical degree of disciplinary responsibility, and the fact that some of them complied with the requirements to retire did not alter in any sense such a finding. 198. Evidence of the fact that retirement is a factor that is external to the disciplinary assessment is that it is possible to apply the sanction corresponding to a disciplinary infringement and, at the same time, concede the right to retirement corresponding to years of service. While the CORJS relied on judicial precedents that allowed for replacement of removal actions for retirement measures in order not to 209 Cf. decision of December 11, 2003 issued by the CORJS, supra note 50. 210 The judgment in question declared admissible an application for amparo against a decision of the CORJS because the latter incurred in “disregard […] of the right to retirement […] acquired a long time before the start of the disciplinary administrative procedure.” Cf. judgment of February 8, 2002 issued by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ (Evidence file, Book VIII, Annex Ñ, p. 2745). 211 A decision of the Plenary Chamber of the STJ had established that it was possible to concede special retirement to “those who have 20 years or more of service in the Public Administration with at least 10 years in the Judiciary. The minimum age required shall be 50 years for women and 55 for men.” Cf. decision issued by the Plenary Chamber of the STJ, published in Official Gazette No. 37.388 of February 20, 2002, cited in the decision of the CORJS of December 11, 2003, supra nota 50, p. 1168. At the time of the facts, Judges Apitz and Rocha both had 3 years and one month of service in the Judiciary, and Judge Ruggeri had 3 years and eight months service in the Judiciary, and the three judges had respectively, 6, 10 and 30 years service in the Public Administration. Cf. Executive Directorate of the Judiciary, Analysis of the Calculation of Retirement of Mrs. Ruggeri of March 1, 2004, of Mr. Rocha of July 19, 2004, and of Mr. Apitz of July 19, 2004 (Evidence file, Book II, Appendix C.3, pp. 626 to 629).