B. The State 16. The State indicated that the impeachment process, as well as the authorities that set it in motion and the legal grounds that were applied, were those established in the Paraguayan Constitution. It also noted that an impeachment trial is eminently political, and because of that political nature, many of the guarantees established for ordinary judicial proceedings do not apply, since the purpose is not to impose a penalty or issue a conviction but rather to remove a public official from office if the person is found guilty of any of the charges the law prescribes as grounds for impeachment. 17. The State indicated that the guarantees of independence and impartiality applicable to judges in ordinary courts do not apply to legislators who participate in an impeachment trial because they contain insurmountable contradictions with respect to the very nature of these political bodies. 18. The State noted that the alleged victims’ improper performance of their duties needed to be investigated, and so a procedure was approved to do that via Resolution No. 122. The State argued that the alleged victims were tried in accordance with all procedural guarantees. Specifically, the State indicated that the legislative branch ensured the alleged victims the right of defense and gave them the opportunity to introduce evidence to refute the charges. The State said that although the Rules of Procedure granted only a 48-hour period to review the articles of impeachment, the Impeachment Committee had forwarded these to the defendants on November 12, 2003, which means that the alleged victims had a total of 18 days between notification and the presentation of their defense. 19. With respect to how long the accused had to present their defense against the charges, the State clarified that although the Rules of Procedure established a three-hour period, the Senate at no time limited the time available to them for their defense. The State indicated that Justice Carlos Fernández made use of the three-hour time period and that Justice Bonifacio Ríos’s defense went on for five and a half hours. 20. In addition, the State argued that the Senate has the intrinsic authority to adopt its own rules of procedure, as well as to define what is understood by “improper performance in office,” and that the IACHR therefore lacks the jurisdiction to analyze the merits of what the Senate has considered as such. The State further deems that the impeachment trial in question is not flawed, as the American Convention is subsidiary to the National Constitution, and the process met all the constitutional parameters. 21. The State indicated that 14 of the 20 counts against the alleged victims were dropped not for lack of grounds but because presenting the evidence to prove those charges would have taken much more time. With respect to article of impeachment 1, concerning a decision by which the justices determined that their own appointments were for life, the State called that decision a “legal heresy.” 22. With respect to article of impeachment 2, concerning the deviation from the procedure for confirming judges, the State noted that the impeached justices did not interpret the case put to them; instead, they delivered a “twisted” interpretation that misrepresented the Constitution. With respect to count 4, concerning interference in the functions of the Chamber of Deputies, the State argued that the law was stretched in order to grant a measure that was in violation of the Constitution. With respect to count 5, concerning the failure to meet procedural deadlines, the State argued that the impeached justices’ conduct was one of complete indolence and negligence. With respect to count 7, concerning interference in legislative authority and upsetting the principle of balance of power, the State argued that the impeached justices had issued a ruling with erga omnes effects, which it said went against the Constitution. Finally, with respect to count 14, in which the State was convicted and ordered to pay damages, the State indicated that “all good citizens in Paraguay regarded the suit (…) as treasonous.” 23. Finally, with respect to Resolutions 951 and 952, the State considers these rulings to be null and void because they were issued by an ad hoc Constitutional Chamber lacking in impartiality; in addition, they were based on the Commission’s own admissibility report and analyze the concept of “improper performance,” an issue over which the Senate has exclusive authority. According to the State, when the Supreme Court overturned that resolution, that resolved the legal question being analyzed once and for all. 3