exercise of the judicial function and the consequent harm to judicial independence and the guarantee of impartiality, to the detriment of the eight victims in this case. * 223. Having determined that the organ that carried out the termination was not competent, it is not necessary to analyze the other guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, because this determination signifies that the decision adopted by Congress was totally unacceptable.267 Accordingly, the Court will not examine the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives in relation to other judicial guarantees. Also, regarding the termination of the judges, owing to the harm to the separation of powers and the arbitrary nature of the actions of Congress, the Court finds that it is not necessary to make a detailed analysis of the arguments of the parties concerning whether the termination decision constituted a punitive act, and other aspects related to the possible implications that the principle of legality would have had in this case. 224. Moreover, in relation to the impeachment proceedings, although it has been argued that the obligation of Congress to provide the reasoning was not complied with, the motions of censure included the reasons why the respective members of Congress considered that it was in order to remove the judges. Also, even though it was argued that the possibility of prosecuting judges for “constitutional and statutory infractions” could be associated with causes for removal that were excessively broad and violated the principle of legality (supra para. 146), the Court does not find it pertinent to examine these arguments in detail, bearing in mind that it has indicated that Ecuadorian law expressly prohibited the prosecution of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal based on the legal content of their opinions and, in particular, on the Legislature’s disagreement with a judicial ruling. The harmful implications of these irregularities on judicial independence has been assessed above (supra paras. 207 to 220 and 222). 225. In this case, the State argued that Article 1(1) of the Convention had not been violated, owing to its autonomous nature, and to the respect that existed for the obligations of prevention and guarantee in this case. In this regard, the Court recalls its consistent case law since the case of Velásquez Rodríguez, according to which Article 1(1) of the American Convention “contains the obligation assumed by the States Parties in relation to each of the protected rights, so that any claim that one of these rights has been harmed, necessarily means that Article 1(1) of the Convention has also been infringed.”268 Article 1(1) of the American Convention is a general norm, whose content extends to all the provisions of the treaty, and it establishes the obligation of States Parties to respect and ensure the free and full exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein “without any discrimination,” and that, whatever the origin or form it may take, any treatment that may be considered discriminatory with regard to the exercise of any of the rights guaranteed in the Convention 267 Similarly, in other cases concerning the military criminal jurisdiction, the Court has indicated that it is not necessary to rule on additional arguments relating to the independence or impartiality of the judge, as well as other guarantees, once it has reached the conclusion that the said jurisdiction was not competent. Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 201; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 161; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 177; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 124, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 115. 268 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 162. 68