3. Arguments on the scope of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention 132. The Commission argued that, in this case, the guarantees of both Article 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention should be analyzed. It indicated that although Article 8(1) of the Convention “does not establish minimum guarantees in matters relating to the determination of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature, the full range of minimum guarantees stipulated in its second paragraph are also applicable in those areas and, therefore, in this type of matter, the individual also has the overall right to the due process applicable in criminal proceedings.” 133. The representatives also argued that both Article 8(1) and 8(2) had been violated. They indicated that “[t]he right to a hearing is established in the second paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention.” 134. The State alleged that the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives “essentially ignore the importance of political control for the exercise of healthy democracy,” given “the juridical nature of political control and its characteristics,” and since “there is no legal definition of the facts that corresponds to the right violated.” It considered that “the legal mechanism of impeachment is a political responsibility,” and that “the decisions resulting from an impeachment proceeding are not taken based on law, but on votes,” and that “it is not the decision of a legal organ, but rather of a political one.” The State also indicated that impeachment “concerns subjective political control, even though it is based on criteria of trust and opportunity, and the grounds are based on the freedom of opinion of those hearing the proceeding.” It added that “impeachment proceedings exercise control by the political power in order to determine the political responsibility of public officials and authorities who hold offices of particular importance in the context of which they can affect fundamental public interests owing to the actions they have taken during the exercise of their functions.” The State argued that, “since [an impeachment proceeding] is not a court trial or one that determines rights or obligations, the minimum guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention cannot be applied rigidly,” because “these guarantees cannot be applied in the same way in proceedings that are not judicial in nature.” 4. Arguments on the right to a hearing and the right of defense 135. Regarding the termination of the judges, the representatives also argued the presumed violation of the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial court, the right to a hearing, to prior notification, to adequate time to prepare a defense, the right to appeal, the right not to be subjected to a new trial for the same facts, and the obligation to provide the reasoning for decisions. 136. With regard to the impeachment proceedings, the Commission noted that “the call for impeachment [on December 1, 2004,] was made after the regulatory period had expired and in the context of the debate on the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal.” In addition, as regards the second vote taken in the impeachment proceedings on December 8, 2004, the Commission considered that “the victims did not have the opportunity to participate in this proceeding or to exercise their right of defense.” 137. In relation to the impeachment proceeding, the representatives indicated that the presumed victims “were notified on November 24, 2004, of their impeachment proceeding on December 1, 2004; in other words, six days before the first proceeding,” and that, after 42