56 unequal protection by domestic law, a violation of Article 24 would occur.223 Given that the arguments in the instant case refer to an alleged discrimination regarding the judicial guarantee to be heard within a reasonable term, the matter should be analyzed pursuant to Articles 1(1) and 8(1) of the Convention. 210. On November 11, 2003, Judge Morales filed a recourse for reconsideration with the CORJS challenging the resolution ordering removal from office and requesting revocation of the sanction given that the requirements for retirement were met before the commencement of disciplinary proceedings.224 211. On December 3, 2003, due to the fact that the CORJS had not ruled on the aforementioned recourse within the 5-day term set forth by law, Judge Morales filed an appeal for annulment together with a constitutional amparo action and, in the alternative, a non nominal precautionary measure,225 based on the same grounds as those specified in the recourse for reconsideration mentioned in the paragraph above. 212. On December 11, 2003, the CORJS ruled on the recourse for reconsideration revoking the order for removal from office and instructing commencement of retirement benefit proceedings (supra para. 194). 213. The Judge submitted a copy of the resolution to the CPAM on February 18, 2004.226 Such Chamber rendered a decision on November 1, 2005, regarding the appeal filed, and established that, in view of the new resolution by the CORJS that renders the act appealed ineffective, “the claim brought by the appellant was fully addressed […] therefore, [the] Chamber considers it useless to render a decision on an administrative act that has completely lost efficacy upon motion, therefore there is no matter to be decided.”227 214. Judges Apitz and Rocha did not file a recourse for reconsideration with the CORJS after removal from office, but on November 27, 2003, they filed an appeal for annulment and a precautionary amparo action with the CPAM, alleging, inter alia, a violation of the right to be tried by a competent judge previously designated by law, the right to defense and due process of law, the presumption of innocence, 223 In this sense, the Court expressed that “[a]rticle 1(1) of the Convention, a rule general in scope which applies to all the provisions of the treaty, imposes on the States Parties the obligation to respect and guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein ‘without any discrimination.’ In other words, regardless of its origin or the form it may assume, any treatment that can be considered to be discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is per se incompatible with that instrument.” On the contrary, article 24 of the Convention “prohibits all discriminatory treatment originating in a legal prescription. The prohibition against discrimination so broadly proclaimed in Article 1(1) with regard to the rights and guarantees enumerated in the Convention thus extends to the domestic law of the States Parties, permitting the conclusion that in these provisions the States Parties, by acceding to the Convention, have undertaken to maintain their laws free of discriminatory regulations.” Cf. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 53 and 54. 224 Cf. recourse for reconsideration filed by Luisa Estella Morales with the CJSOR on November 11, 2003 (Evidence to Facilitate the Adjudication of the Case file, Book XVIII, pp. 5057 to 5074). 225 Cf. appeal for annulment and precautionary amparo action filed by Luisa Estella Morales with the CORJS on December 3, 2003 (Evidence to Facilitate the Adjudication of the Case file, Book XVIII, pp. 4986 to 5027). 226 Cf. minutes of the Secretary of the CPAM of February 18, 2004, which specifies that Luisa Estella Morales submitted a copy of the resolution issued by the CORJS on December 11. (Evidence to Facilitate the Adjudication of the Case file, Book XVIII, p. 5112). 227 Cf. judgment No. 6080 of November 1, 2005, rendered by the CPAM (Evidence to Facilitate the Adjudication of the Case file, Book XVIII, pp. 5125 to 5129).