2005-CNM. He repeated the arguments set out in his brief of November 17, 2005, and indicated that he had not filed an appeal for review because he was subject to criminal proceedings.75 60. On February 20, 2006, in Decision No. 078-2006-CNM, the CNM declared the appeal for review inadmissible due to the statute of limitations. It indicated that since the appeal was for review and since the CNM was a single instance organ, the appeal should have been filed within 10 days of notification of the decision.76 VII MERITS 61. This case relates to the disciplinary proceeding instituted against Hector Fidel Cordero Bernal because he had granted unconditional release to two defendants. This proceedings culminated in his dismissal as Provisional Judge of the Fourth Criminal Court of the province of Huánuco, Peru. The Inter-American Commission, the presumed victim and his representatives alleged that the disciplinary proceeding had not respected judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, political rights, and the rights to appeal a ruling and to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h)), 9, 23(1)(c) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. The Inter-American Commission argued that, in this case, the absence of a duly substantiated decision had constituted an international wrongful act insofar as “it was mandatory for the disciplinary authority to provide a duly substantiated decision that clearly established the reasons why the ruling issued by Mr. Cordero Bernal – despite the fact that it had been corrected by the available legal remedies – required disciplinary control because it revealed his lack of competence and suitability as a judge to the point of meriting the most severe sanction.”77 For its part, the State contested the arguments according to which it was responsible for violating Mr. Cordero Bernal’s rights. 62. This Court must now assess whether or not the disciplinary proceeding undertaken against Mr. Cordero Bernal and the decision taken to dismiss him were in keeping with the system of guarantees established in the Convention, and whether the sanction imposed was proportionate to the conduct of the then judge. Also, the Commission has asked the Court to rule on the legality of the norm on which the proceeding was based and on the CNM’s decision – in particular, on whether it was unsubstantiated, thereby affecting judicial independence from the perspective of tenure. To decide this matter, the Court will examine: (1) the alleged violation of judicial guarantees, the principle of legality and political rights and (2) the alleged violation of the rights to appeal against a judgment and to judicial protection. VII-1 JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS78 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 75 Cf. Appeal filed by Mr. Cordero Bernal, January 25, 2006 (evidence file, folios 226 to 230). Cf. National Council of the Judiciary, Decision 078-2006-CNM, February 20, 2006 (evidence file, folios 232 and 233). 76 77 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Merits Report No. 115/18 (merits file, folio 26). 78 Articles 8, 9 and 23 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. 16