2. The Right to a Competent Authority through Proceedings Previously Established by Law and the Principle of Legality 50. The IACHR recalls that the guarantee of competence of the sanctioning authority implies the right to be tried by the respective authorities in accordance with previously established procedures. Therefore the State should refrain from creating tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures to displace the jursidiction normally belonging to the ordinary courts. 28 Such guarantee is satisfied when the sanctioning authority originates in a norm established prior to the case29 and, correlatively, said norm is violated when the organ lacks jurisdiction, established by law. 30 51. The Commission has also indicated that in the framework of punitive procedures against justice operators, there must be clear rules regarding the grounds and procedures for removing judges from office, and their absence, in addition to raising doubts about the judicial independence, can lead to arbitrary actions of abuse of power, with direct repercussions on the rights to due process and legality. 31 52. In the present case, the Commission reiterates that the alleged victim and the other members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and of the Constitutional Tribunal were dismissed through Resolution 25160 of the National Congress on the grounds that they were appointed in a manner contrary to law. At the time of the events, the law established that they had a four-year mandate and the only way provided for in the Constitution to remove them was through impeachment. 53. As already mentioned in the present report, this ground constituted an apparent justification that concealed a de facto sanction. In particular, regarding the manner in which said Resolution violated the right to a competent authority through the previously established procedures, in the Case of Camba Campos et al. v. Ecuador, the IACHR indicated the following regarding the Constitutional Tribunal, which is fully applicable to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, as indicated in the relevant normative framework section: (...) the Constitution and the law established expressly that [the] mandate was four years, and the only way to remove them established in the Constitution was by impeachment (...) in a difficult political context among the different branches of government, Congress created an ad hoc mechanism not proved for in the Constitution or by law to proceed to terminate all the members of the Constitutional Tribunal based on the argument that they had been elected illegally in 2003 and that it was necessary to correct that illegality.32 54. For its part, in the same case, the Court stated that: the National Congress was not competent to take the decision to terminate the judges, and this was not an appropriate decision in light of the principles of judicial independence (...).33 Within a period of 14 days, not only the Constitutional Tribunal was removed, but also the Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice, which constitutes an abrupt and totally unacceptable course of action. All these acts signify an impairment of judicial independence.34 55. Based on these considerations, the IACHR finds that the State removed Mr. Aguinaga Aillón arbitrarily, by means of a procedure and grounds not provided for in domestic law, without the National I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 50. 29 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 53. 30 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 221. 31 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 206 and 207. 32 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para.145. 33 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 180. 34 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 212. 28 10