judges.109 Consequently, any reasoning concerning the analysis of an alleged violation of the judicial independence and judicial guarantees of judges subjected to impeachment by the Legislature, must analyze different standards, in the context of the detailed scrutiny required by the greater guarantees enjoyed by judges under the constitutional and democratic rule of law. B) Following the precedent of the 2001 case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru (applicability “in general” to impeachment of the rights established in Article 8(2)) 82. According to a long line of the case law of the Inter-American Court, the guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention are applicable to any action of any branch of the State in which the rights of the individual are affected. This was also recognized with regard to the impeachment in the oft-cited case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. And, specifically in the present case, the ICourtHR found it “opportune to ratify the fundamental criteria contained”110 in this 2001 precedent, and thus “ratife[d] the following criteria mentioned in that case”:111 68. Respect for human rights constitutes a limit to a State’s activity, and this is true for any organ or official in a situation of power, due to its official nature, with regard to other persons. Consequently, any form of exercising public power that violates the rights recognized in the Convention is unlawful. This is even more important when the State exercises its power to sanction, because this not only presumes that the authorities act with total respect for the legal system, but it also involves granting the minimum guarantees of due process to all persons who are subject to its jurisdiction, as established in the Convention. 69. Although Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Judicial Guarantees” [in the Spanish version - “Right to a Fair Trial” in the English version], its application is not strictly limited to judicial remedies, “but rather the procedural requirements that should be observed in order to be able to speak of effective and appropriate judicial guarantees”112 so that a person may defend himself adequately in the face of any kind of act of the State that affects his rights. 70. The Court has already established that, although this article 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 the second paragraph of this article 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 matters.113 71. Although the jurisdictional function belongs, in particular, to the Judiciary under the separation of powers that exists in the rule of law, other public organs or authorities may exercise functions of the same type.114 In other words, when the Convention refers to the right of everyone to be heard by a competent judge or court to “determine his rights,” this expression refers to any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, which, through its decisions determines individual rights and obligations. For that reason, this Court considers that any State organ that exercises functions of a materially jurisdictional nature has the obligation to adopt decisions that are in consonance with the guarantees of due legal process in the terms of Article 8 of the American Convention. […] 109 Perlin, Adam A., “The Impeachment of Samuel Chase: Redefining Judicial Independence”, Rutgers Law Review, vol. 62:3, 2010, pp. 729, 788. 110 Para. 165 of the Judgment. 111 Para. 166 of the Judgment. 112 Cf. Judicial guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27. 113 Cf. Case of Paniagua Morales et al. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 149. 114 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell, judgement of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, para. 76, and Eur. Court H.R., case of X v. the United Kingdom, judgement of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, para. 53. 22