protection) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2(domestic legal effects) thereof. 28. The petitioner argues that Article 24 of the Convention (right to equal protection) was violated because the articles of impeachment, the impeachment proceedings and the verdict against him were arbitrary. He explains, for example, that only three justices were impeached for decisions, rulings and administrative orders signed by all nine justices on the Supreme Court, some of whom still have their seat on the bench. He goes on to explain that on June 8, 2007, the Supreme Court of Paraguay reached an agreement and delivered a ruling identical to agreements and judgments 222 and 223 of May 5, 2000, which were among the decisions cited as grounds for removing the petitioner from the bench. However, the 2007 ruling did not lead to the impeachment of the justices who delivered it. 29. The petitioner alleges that Article 8 of the Convention was violated by virtue of the following, inter alia: none of the charges against him constituted violations of preexisting law; the principle of presumption of innocence was not observed; appeal of the Senate resolution was expressly prohibited, and the means and time periods essential for preparation and presentation of his defense were severely limited. The petitioner also argues that his right to be judged by an independent and impartial tribunal was violated by virtue of the fact that the senators who were to act as his judges could not recuse themselves and had already agreed on the names of the six justices to be removed and the names of the new members of the Court. 30. He argues that Article 25 was violated by virtue of the fact that the action he brought challenging the constitutionality of the rules of procedure of the impeachment trial was never heard. The petitioner also points out that the action he brought challenging the constitutionality of the resolution ordering his removal from the bench was never heard either. He contends that the Inter-American Commission should indicate to the Paraguayan State that conviction before trial is unacceptable even in cases of impeachment, and that due process must be observed, taking particular care to respect the basic principles of presumption of innocence, the right to a real defense, and the right not to be convicted without trial. B. The State 31. The State contends that the petitioner has not yet exhausted the remedies under domestic law and that the petition does not state facts that tend to demonstrate a violation of rights protected under the American Convention. Accordingly, “the State rejects the assertion that the petitioner’s right to a fair trial, his right to his honor and dignity, his right to have access, under general conditions of equality, to public service, his right to equal protection and his right to judicial protection have not been respected.” The State argues that removal from high public office, even if alleged to be unlawful, cannot be regarded as a denial of a person’s basic human right. It reasons, therefore, that the petitioner’s case is untenable. 32. The State argues that the judicial branch of government in Paraguay was not crushed into subjugation, but instead is a normally functioning and fully independent institution. It observes that “each and every candidate that the various political parties, movements and groups nominated for the office of President pledged –both formally and to the national electorate- to launch a frontal attack on corruption in the region. And, as was to be expected, the legitimate winner in the presidential elections lived up to his word. With the other political leaders and candidates, representatives of all churches, religious sects and creeds, civil society, intermediate organizations, trade unions, organized labor and other elements of Paraguayan society, he undertook to clean up and restore ethics to the judicial