43. The IACHR notes that various members of Congress subsequently filed criminal complaints against the alleged victims for the crimes of malfeasance, attack on the constitutional order, usurpation of public functions, and extortion, damage to the public trust, and illegitimate enrichment. 44. On November 5, 2005, the Fourth Supervising Criminal Judge dismissed the complaint. In his resolution, the judge indicated that: (…) This judge may agree with the legal position of the former Justices in several rulings under examination, but in the light of criminal law, he does not consider that the punishable offense of Malfeasance has been committed. (…) In terms of the alleged attack on the constitutional order, no evidence was found that would indicate an overreach of the legal powers conferred on the Supreme Court. As regards usurpation of public functions and extortion, it was found that the fact that the Justices approved a change in the rate of judicial remuneration does not constitute the imposition of a tax but a simple adjustment in amount based on the Consumer Price Index, in keeping with what has been established by the pertinent legislation. As regards the crime of damage to the public trust, it was concluded that because there has been no impact on the national patrimony, one of the elements that would constitute such a crime does not exist. Finally, the crime of illegitimate enrichment was dismissed because “the very authority responsible for analyzing the consistency of the sworn statements provided by the former Justice concluded that these statements are substantiated.”20 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Right to a fair trial,21 freedom from ex post facto laws,22 and judicial protection23 1. General considerations regarding applicable guarantees 45. The Commission notes 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 proceedings but apply to other types of proceedings as well.24 Specifically, when sanction proceedings are involved, both of the system’s bodies have indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention apply analogously.25 Annex 10. Judgments 951 and 952. Annex to the January 16, 2010, written observations of Carlos Fernández. Article 8 of the Convention establishes, in its pertinent sections: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: b) prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; c) adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; h) the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 22 Article 9 of the American Convention establishes, “No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.” 23 Article 25 of the American Convention establishes, in the pertinent section, that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 24 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; I/A Court H.R., 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. 25 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; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. [continues …] 20 21 12