declare the Peruvian State responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, political rights and judicial protection contained in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9, 23(1)(c) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. The Court notes with concern that more than twenty years have passed from the moment when the initial petition was lodged until the case was submitted to the Court. II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5. Notification to the State and to the presumed victim. The submission of the case was notified to the State and to the presumed victim on September 19, 2019. 6. Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On November 5, 2019, the presumed victim presented his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. He asked that the Court determine the responsibility of the Peruvian State for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, political rights and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9, 23(1)(c) and 25(1) of the American Convention. He also asked that the Court order the Peruvian State to pay compensation for the harm suffered. He stressed that, as a result of the judicial proceedings, his right to health had been impaired. He indicated that he now had difficulty to speak and to move and that his reinstatement as a judge was not possible owing to his health situation. 7. Answering brief. On February 5, 2020, the State2 presented its brief answering the submission of the case and the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “the answering brief”), in which it filed a preliminary objection and contested the alleged violations and the requests for measures of reparation presented by the Commission and the presumed victim. 8. Observations on the preliminary objection. Based on Court Decisions 1/20 of March 17, 2020,3 and 2/20 of April 16, 2020, 4 the Court decided to suspend the calculation of all time frames due to the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the deadline for presenting observations on the preliminary objection was extended until June 19, 2020. On April 9, 2020, the Inter-American Commission presented its observation on the preliminary objection filed by the State. The representatives 5 presented their observations on the preliminary objection on June 17, 2020. 9. Final written procedure. In an order of September 15, 2020, 6 the President of the Court, based on the situation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to the powers granted by Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure, decided not to call a public hearing in this case, to require the State to forward documentation as helpful evidence, 7 to request The State of Peru appointed Carlos Miguel Reaño Balarezo, Supranational Special Legal Representative, as its Agent in this case, and the lawyers, Silvana Lucía Gómez Salazar and María Eugenia Neyra Surco, as its deputy agents. 2 3 Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_18_2020.pdf 4 Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/comunicados/cp_28_2020.pdf Mr. Cordero Bernal represented himself during the initial processing of this case before the Inter-American Court. As of February 13, 2020, the presumed victim’s representation was assumed by the lawyers, Pilar Carla Piccinini Gómez and Sandra Lorena Haro Colomé, inter-American public defenders. 5 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 15, 2020. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/corderobernal_ 15_09_20.pdf 6 The State was asked to forward: (a) the 1998 Peruvian Constitution; (b) the Organic Law of the Judiciary of June 2, 1993; (c) the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary (Law No. 26397); (d) Law No. 26933, 7 4