unconditional release led the National Council of the Judiciary to affirm that this decision had no rational substantiation and was serious. 84. In this Court’s opinion, the reasoning of the CNM’s decision, which referred to the investigation reports, revealed a detailed analysis of the facts that led to the dismissal decision and of the reasons that allowed this conduct to be classified as a serious disciplinary offense. Although those facts were related to a judicial decision, the Court notes that the reasoning of the decision of the National Council of the Judiciary did not question the decision itself, but rather the decision-making process which, in the CNM’s opinion, did not make a rational analysis of the facts and the applicable norms and, for that reason, gave rise to a decision without any rational or logical substantiation. 85. In particular, with regard to the order of unconditional freedom and the consequent disciplinary responsibility of Mr. Cordero Bernal, the CNM established: SEVENTH. That, despite these precedents, the judge in this proceeding granted the two defendants the benefit of unconditional release processed in a separate motion; that the said decision cannot be substantiated based on the established facts, or on the statements of the defendants because these are implausible; that the correct and reasonable course of action would have been to continue and conclude the judicial investigation in the principal case file, reserving the ruling on the responsibility of the defendants to the end of the investigation process and not to interrupt it as has been done. EIGHTH. That the defense presented by the judge in this proceeding and the documents he has submitted refer, first, to his argument that this disciplinary proceeding “refers exclusively to acts of a jurisdictional nature”; second, that in the order granting the benefit of unconditional release his “action was in keeping with the law and the facts and evidence examined in the respective investigation”; third, that the representative of the Public Prosecution Service “did not offer or provide evidence, merely exercising the remedies established by law for the decision to be reviewed by higher authorities”; fourth, that, in this way, “the plural instance was implemented that constitutes a principle and guarantee of the administration of justice”; fifth, that the prosecutor did not question his actions as the judge of the proceedings; sixth, that it is not true that there had been connivance with the President of the Superior Court of Huánuco because, as a lower judge, he was subject to the supervision of the President of the Court and had to obey the directives issued by that authority; seventh, that it was not true that the burden of proof had been reversed since this was a drugtrafficking crime or that the presumption of innocence was eliminated owing to the coincidental presence of indications, a criterion that infringes article 2.24.e) of the Constitution; eighth, that the assessment of the content of the criminal case file made by the officials of the Office for Control of Judges was subjective; ninth, lastly, that in his final report, the judge of the case, Oriol San Martín, had ruled on the “absence of criminal responsibility of the defendants,” thereby proving him right. NINTH. That those defense arguments duly analyzed do not change the opinion of the Office for Control of Judges and of the Executive Council of the Judiciary which have requested the dismissal of the defendant, or the result of the assessment of the facts and of the decision that is the subject of this proceeding, because the irregularity detected in this case is the irrational nature of the decision granting release; that is, the impossibility of finding a sensible substantiating reason and, especially, a legal reason, which are the minimum or elementary requirements for the exercise of the jurisdictional function; that, it is not matter of discussing the reasons for a decision such as the defendant does in his defense; to the contrary, it has been clearly established that this is not the purpose of this proceeding because, for it to be possible to make an analysis of the reasons for a decision, it is a condition sine qua non that the said decision has a rational legal content, which the order granting unconditional release requested by the defendants does not have; that the defendant’s argument that the representative of the Public Prosecution Service appealed the decision without questioning the defendant’s action is a misleading argument because it modifies the subject of the analysis of the rationality of the decision granting premature unconditional release to the defendants whose situation was clearly that they had violated Peruvian territorial space to move a large amount of foreign currency and as illegal drugs had been found, while the excuse that their trip was to transfer corpses could not be considered valid; that, the opinion of the judge who subsequently took over the criminal case, when drafting the final report that the defendants were not criminally responsible, a situation that the defendant wants to assert in his favor, is contradicted by the subsequent accusation of the Superior Prosecutor on folio eight hundred and seventy-nine of the criminal file provided and by the consequent indictment issued by the Full Chamber of the Superior Court of Huánuco on folio eight hundred and eighty-one, so that opinion of the criminal judge has no effect whatsoever as regards this disciplinary proceeding; that, in addition, the order granting unconditional release was revoked by the Full Chamber (folio four hundred and eight), ordering the recapture of the defendants and refraining from 22