month time frame for the investigation had not expired; (iii) the defendants had admitted that they had stolen a small aircraft registered to Colombia and had entered Peruvian territory irregularly; (iv) Mr. Cordero Bernal’s assessment of the evidence was “incongruous” because, even though there were sufficient indications that the defendants had entered Peruvian territory to transport drugs, he believed the defendants’ assertion that they entered the country to exchange two corpses.38 41. Based on the foregoing, the investigating judge concluded that Mr. Cordero Bernal had “not only seriously infringed the Judiciary’s respectability, but had also compromised the dignity of the office, devaluing it in the opinion of the public, so that he should be dismissed from his position, pursuant to article 211 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, without prejudice to a copy of the proceedings being forwarded to the acting provincial prosecutor […] so that the latter may proceed in keeping with his functions […].”39 The investigator also concluded that the sanction of dismissal should also be applied to the President and Secretary of the Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco due to their participation in those facts, and also that a disciplinary proceeding should be opened against the person occupying the post of judge of the First Criminal Court of Huánuco before Mr. Cordero Bernal was appointed to that post.40 42. In a decision of August 3, 1995, the Principal Member – Judicial Head of the OCMA issued the investigation report and proposed the dismissal. The decision referred to both the irregularities in the appointment of Mr. Cordero Bernal as the judge of the First Criminal Court of Huánuco, and to the functional irregularities related to the decision to grant unconditional release to two defendants. The OCMA based the proposal to dismiss Mr. Cordero Bernal on article 211 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and article 33 of the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary.41 The decision also proposed the dismissal of the then President and Secretary of the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco, 42 and to forward a copy of the proceedings to the Prosecutor General.43 43. On October 18, 1995, the President of the Executive Council of the Judiciary approved the proposal to dismiss Mr. Cordero Bernal and asked the National Council of the Judiciary (hereinafter “the CNM”) to proceed to dismiss him.44 D.2 Procedure before the National Council of the Judiciary (CNM) 44. On December 4, 1995, Mr. Cordero Bernal presented his brief answering the charges before the CNM and justified the decision adopted.45 On December 11, 1995, he presented an expanded version of his defense and justified his request not to be submitted to a disciplinary proceeding on the basis of the principles of legality, impartiality and presumption of innocence, 38 Cf. The Judiciary’s Office for Control of Judges, Report of July 21, 1995 (evidence file, folios 1099 to 1103). 39 The Judiciary’s Office for Control of Judges, Report of July 21, 1995 (evidence file, folio 1103). 40 The Judiciary’s Office for Control of Judges, Report of July 21, 1995 (evidence file, folio 1103). Article 33 of the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary established that this body should “investigate the actions of judges and prosecutors of the other courts, respectively, in order to determine the application of the sanction of dismissal, without prejudice to the powers that correspond to other organs” (evidence file, folio 1643). 41 42 Cf. The Judiciary’s Office for Control of Judges, Report of August 3, 1995 (evidence file, folio 1068). 43 Cf. The Judiciary’s Office for Control of Judges, Report of August 3, 1995 (evidence file, folio 1068). 44 Cf. Executive Council of the Judiciary. Decision of October 18, 1995 (evidence file, folio 1351). Cf. Brief answering the charges presented by Mr. Cordero Bernal on December 4, 1995 (evidence file, folios 1367 to 1363). 45 12