58. Finally, the record shows that on August 22, 2013, the alleged victim issued a ruling on the right to vote of people deprived of liberty that ordered the Electoral Service to “provide the means necessary for citizens who are in pretrial detention and not charged by the Seventh Guarantees Court of Santiago to fully exercise the political rights guaranteed by our laws, especially the ability to vote in the upcoming presidential elections.”29 59. Later, the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the State asked the Supreme Court to adopt the measures necessary to nullify the orders issued by the alleged victim on the grounds that he lacked competence to issue them. 60. The decision of the alleged victim was overruled by the Santiago Appellate Court on October 7, 2013. The court found that the decision reached by the alleged victim “falls outside the scope of his competence, and he lacks the legal authority to issue it.”30 IV. A. ANALYSIS OF LAW Prior considerations 61. The Commission notes that in his initial petition, the alleged victim only made reference to the disciplinary sanction applied to him for the academic paper he sent to the Supreme Court after completing the Human Rights and Democratization Processes certificate program of the Universidad de Chile. Based on those facts, on July 21, 2014, the IACHR declared the petition admissible for examination of the alleged violation of the rights of Daniel Urrutia enshrined in articles 8, 9, 13, and 25, in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty. Following approval of the admissibility report, the alleged victim pointed to other disciplinary processes brought against him in the context of his position with the judiciary. As they were not admitted in the admissibility report and are not sufficiently connected to the facts declared admissible, and as the IACHR does not have sufficient evidence on them, in this section the Commission will only address the facts found in the initial petition that were admitted by this Commission in its report of July 21, 2014. B. Right to a fair trial, principle of legality, and judicial protection (Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention) 1. General considerations on the applicable guarantees 62. The Commission recalls that both bodies of the inter-American system have indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not limited to criminal processes; rather, they also apply to processes of other natures.31 Specifically, as regards sanctioning processes, both bodies have indicated that by analogy, the guarantees established in articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the American Convention do apply.32 Taking into account that in this case, the alleged victim received a disciplinary sanction related to his position as a judge of the Guarantees Court of Coquimbo, the due process guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention are applicable. 29 Annex 11. Ruling AD-1170-2013 of Daniel Urrutia Labreaux of August 23, 2013. Annexed to the comments from the State dated October 11, 2016. 30 Annex 12. Official Letter No 187-2.013 of November 11, 2013 de la Santiago Appellate Court, addressed to the President of the Supreme Court. Annexed to the State’s comments dated October 11, 2016. 31 IACHR Report No. 65/11, Case 12,600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al. (Justices of the Supreme Court), Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; Inter-American Court. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127;. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011, Series C No. 233, para. 111. 32 IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A review of the standards adopted by the InterAmerican system of human rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, paras. 98-123; and Case No. 12,828, Report 112/12, Marcel Granier et al., Venezuela, Merits, November 9, 2012, para. 188; Inter-American Court. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127. 10