24 Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; 1, 3, 4 (2), 44, 51, 53 (g), 55, 56(3 ), 60, 64(a), 65, 66, 73, 74, 83 and 84 of the Judicial Career Service Act; 1, 7, 9(3), 60, 64 (a), 65, 66, 73, 74, 83 and 84 of the Judicial Career Service Act; 1, 7, 9(4), 149, 160, 161, 171, 172(b) (f), 174, 180 (3), 184, 186, 187 (a), 188, 189, 190, 206, 214 of the Regulations Governing the Judicial Career Service Act; 3 (1), (4) and (6) of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts; 43, 44, 53, 55 of the Ibero-American Model Code of Judicial Ethics; 10 and 20 of the Statute of the IberoAmerican Judge; 1(d), 2(d) and (f), 8 (a) and 9 of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and 123 Employees. 77. On June 30, 2010, Judge Chévez filed an appeal with the Judicial Career Council to challenge that decision.124 On February 17, 2011, Judge Chévez appeared before the Judicial Career Council for a hearing on his appeal. In the course of the proceedings, he entered an objection claiming that disciplinary action in his case was time barred and a decision was made on the evidence offered.125 During the hearing, Judge Chévez said that he did not know which members of the Council would be examining his appeal and observed that he had never been notified of the May 5, 2010 decision that appears in the disciplinary case file, bearing the signature of the Chief Justice of the SCJ.126 78. On August 24, 2011, the Judicial Career Council decided to grant his appeal of his dismissal, but not his request to be reinstated in his post.127 In its decision, the Council repeated the arguments regarding independence and impartiality, and observance of the judicial guarantees in the proceedings. As for the charges made against Judge Chévez, the Council held that according to the writ of habeas corpus dated August 13, 2009, “while it is true that the arrest of attorney CHEVEZ DE LA ROCHA is there, it is also true that the arrest would not be a determinative fact since the competent authority had stated that Judge Chévez was not under arrest.” It also wrote that “the slights or rude remarks to his colleagues” had not been shown and that even if they had been proven, the principle of proportionality dictates that the proper course of action “should have been to order that the plaintiff pay […] a fine or that he be suspended, but not that he be dismissed, which is the ultimate punishment.” However, the Council observed that the evidence “demonstrated that attorney LUIS ALONSO CHÉVEZ DE LA ROCHA is ashamed of belonging to the Judicial Branch and works there out of need; hence, given his expressions of dissent, it is not in either party’s best interests to leave the employment relationship intact.” It added that his reinstatement was out of the question, as his replacement had already been appointed back on September 13, 2010. The Council therefore ordered compensation consisting of payment of one month's salary for each year of service in the judiciary and one month's salary for the concept of "notice" and other compensation according to applicable law.128 123 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Case File 3078. Memorandum No. 1183-SSCJ-2010. June 4, 2010. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 124 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case File No. 3078. June 30, 2010. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 125 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case File No. 3078. Certification of the Hearing. February 17, 2011, pp. 38 to 44. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012. 126 Annex 20. File 5. Judicial Career Council of the SCJ. Certification of the Hearing on Case No. 3078. February 17, 2011, pages 38 to 44. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 127 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case File No. 3078. Decision of the Judicial Career Council. August 24, 2011, pages 341-352. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012. 128 Annex 20. SCJ. Judicial Career Council. Certification, Case File No. 3078. Decision of the Judicial Career Council. August 24, 2011, pages 341-352. Attachment to the State’s communication of June 25, 2012 received on July 2, 2012.