32 Enrique Barrios.167 At the end of the article was an asterisked notation after Judge Barrios’ name that read “*Sentencing Judge and Chair of Constitutional Law, unah-vs. This is a summary of a chat that attorney Ramón Enrique Barrios, Chair of Constitutional Law, gave for a group of teachers and workers at the UNAH-VS [Universidad Autónoma de Honduras].” The article does not give the name of the person who prepared the summary. The comments in the text included such remarks as “This was not a constitutional succession; it was a coup d’état. This crisis began with a call for a non-binding survey. It was neither a plebiscite nor a referendum, which are binding.” The article closed with the following comment: “This is the historic, self-defining moment to set out to defend the institutions of government and the Rule of Law; this is not about any one person. Speaking for myself, while I am not a member of a political party, I am nonetheless a citizen and as chair of the UNAH I have to help enlighten the public we serve.” 168 102. That same day, August 28, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General of Courts and Tribunals made a record of the notification of the article titled “This was not a constitutional succession” in order to attach it to the file of investigation no. 278-IGJT-PJ-2009.169 On September 16, 2009, during a deposition made in the course of that investigation, Judge Barrios said that the article was written by Patricia Murillo Gutiérrez, Dean of the School of Journalism of the UNAH-VS, and that the opinions reported in the article were made in his capacity as a professor, not as a judge.170 On September 17, 2009, the Office of the Inspector General approved a report turned in by the inspectors involved in the investigation. The report found that the conduct of Judge Barrios was a violation of Article 3 of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts. The relevant parts of that article read as follows: Article 3. Judicial authorities shall not: 1) Become involved in other activities and perform functions other than those prescribed in Laws … 2nd….3rd….4th Send the Executive Branch, Public Officials or government-owned corporations, remarks either congratulating or criticizing them for their actions… 5) … 6) …”; this read in conjunction with Article 53 (f), (g) and (55) of the Judicial Career Service Act and Articles 172 (e) and (f) and 174 of its Governing Regulations.” Finally, the report found that Judge Barrios had engaged in “acts inimical to the dignity of the Administration of Justice and matters incompatible with the exercise of his office, as provided in articles 321, 322, and 323(1) of the Constitution of the Republic; 44), 53 (b) and (g) of the Judicial Career Service Act; 6) 149 and 172 (b) of its Governing Regulations; and had failed to comply with articles 1 (d) and (e) and 2 (d) and (f) of the Code of Ethics for Judicial Officials and Employees; and 3, 8, 43 and 55 of the Ibero-American Code of Judicial Ethics.” The Inspector General ordered that the report be sent to the Office of the Director of Judicial Career Personnel Management “for the legal purposes it deems pertinent.”171 167 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Press release Tiempo. August 28, 2009. No hubo sucesión constitucional [This was not a constitutional succession]. Page 16. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 168 Annex 19. Investigation Report. Press release Tiempo. August 28, 2009. No hubo sucesión constitucional [This was not a constitutional succession]. Page 16. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011 169 Annex 19. Investigation Report. SCJ. Northwestern Regional Office of the Inspector of Courts. August 28, 2009. Document signed by José Francisco Quiroz, Inspector of Courts. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 170 Annex 19. Investigation Report. SCJ. Northwestern Regional Office of the Inspector of Courts. September 16, 2009. Deposition. Investigation No. 278/284-IGJT-PJ-2009. Page 191. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011. 171 Annex 19. Investigation Report. SCJ. Office of the Inspector General of Courts. Decision of September 17, 2009. Pages 210-2013. Attachment to the petitioners’ communication of January 20, 2011.