branch, at all levels and ranks, starting with the highest court in the land, as is only logical.” It adds that all the mass media supported or called for the replacement of the justices. 33. The State contends that never before in Paraguayan political history have the governed and the governing shared so much common cause. It goes on to say that “the situation was a combination of wheeling-and-dealing, unlawful enrichment, cronyism, sycophancy and habitual corruption that were characteristic of the members of the Supreme Court, who were impeached in strict accordance with the National Constitution.” The State writes that the fact that “political leaders had reached a consensus agreement to impeach even before the impeachment proceedings were brought against the justices on the Supreme Court […] illustrates that the impeachment process was anything but arbitrary; instead, it was an act of justice responsive to the public outcry voiced in the elections held in the country at that time.” The State alleges that prior to the impeachment process, the consensus reached among political leaders was on the need to clean up the administration of justice, thus heeding the public’s demands and outcries. 34. The State makes the point that the egregious mistakes, omissions, negligence or failings of its agents cannot be overlooked. It notes that under the Paraguayan Constitution, impeachment is the proper procedure for removing a justice from the Supreme Court. The State adds that Article 190 of the Constitution authorizes each chamber to draft its own rules of procedure and that it was on the basis of that article that the rules of procedure for the impeachment trial were passed. It adds that the House of Representatives, which under the Constitution prepares the articles of impeachment, has sovereign authority to formulate the charges and put together the evidence. The State observes that the position of Supreme Court justice is a political office. 35. As for the supposed personal and family harassment, the State notes that given the post he once occupied, “it is implausible that so powerful a man could not avoid what he oddly labels harassment.” It adds that the allegation that the so-called harassment is traceable to government sources is false and unfounded. 36. According to the State, in his trial in the Senate chamber, the petitioner had an opportunity to have his defense arguments heard, with all the necessary guarantees; at no time was he without means of defense. He had an opportunity to introduce evidence to refute the charges against him, to argue the evidence and to present it to his judges within the time period that the Rules of Procedure in the impeachment chamber afforded him. The State further asserts that although under the Rules of Procedure the petitioner had a 48-hour period in which to review the articles of impeachment, the Impeachment Committee had forwarded the articles of impeachment to the defendants long before the Rules of Procedure were enacted. The State adds that although under the Rules of Procedure, the petitioner had only three hours to present his defense arguments, the Senate Chamber, acting as Court, never limited the time allowed to the defendants to make their case. It also asserts that the proceedings were conducted within a reasonable period of time. The State contends that the Judicial Branch has received, processed and substantiated each and every one of its presentations to the petitioner, thereby guaranteeing his right to an effective recourse. 37. The State observes that an impeachment trial is a special and eminently political proceeding established in the Constitution. Given its nature, the State argues, many of the guarantees established for the common judicial proceeding do not apply in the case of an impeachment trial, since the purpose of impeachment is not to apply a penalty or issue a sentence; instead, its sole purpose is to remove a public official from office if found guilty of any of the charges that the law prescribes as grounds for impeachment. In its observations on the present petition, the State cites the arguments given by one of the senators during