mentioned, this also encompasses – without any doubt, from my point of view – the guarantee of the criminalization of all offenses of legal and public significance. The second argument to affirm that the institution of impeachment must be subsumed in Article 9 of the Pact of San José relates to what I have explained previously: granting Congress such broad and important powers as the removal of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal can only be compatible with the necessary constitutional checks and balance, if it is exercised based on specific grounds considered as a mechanism of protection against the attempts of the National Congress to resort to interpretations that consist in an abuse of power, that exceeds the admissible limits of the interpretation of the law (in this regard see, supra para. 15). 116. In other words, in order to be in conformity with the American Convention, the criteria for impeaching judges or members of the Constitutional Tribunal should have been clear and explicit. Hence, the connection between the separation of powers, judicial independence, and the principle of legality is fundamental in order to bring the mechanism of the impeachment of judges into line with what should be its only acceptable configuration under the Convention: that of an eventual non-arbitrary sanction, to be applied with the guarantees consubstantial with the rule of law, as required also by Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter (see supra para. 13).156 117. In this regard, the ICourtHR has considered that the principle of legality entails a clear definition of criminal conduct, which establishes its elements, and allows it to be distinguished from non-punishable conduct or unlawful conduct punishable with noncriminal measures. Ambiguity in the definition of disciplinary or criminal offenses gives rise to doubts and opens the way to the discretion of the authority, which is particularly undesirable when establishing the criminal responsibility of the individual and sanctioning this with penalties that have a severe impact on fundamental rights, such as life or freedom. Norms that fail to strictly delimit criminal conducts violate the principle of legality established in Article 9 of the American Convention.157 2. In this case 118. Some factual clarifications must be made in order to understand the possible application of the principle of legality in this case. In this regard, it should be stressed that the termination of the judges on November 25, 2004, and the impeachment proceedings that were held subsequently, were not of a criminal nature. However, and as indicated previously, there is no dispute about the punitive nature of impeachment, so that there is impairment, deprivation or alteration of the rights of the individual, as a result of an unlawful conduct. Therefore, in a democratic system it is necessary to take maximum care to ensure that the said measures are adopted strictly respecting the basic rights of the individual and following a careful verification that the unlawful conduct actually existed”; Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 106. 156 This article establishes that essential elements of representative democracy are respect for human rights, access to and “the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, […] and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” 157 Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, para. 63. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 121, and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, para. 125. The Court has also stressed that laws that establish restrictions “must use precise criteria and not grant unfettered discretionality to those responsible for their enforcement.” Cf. Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 124. 33