46. The case at hand involves an impeachment trial that ended with the decision to remove the alleged victims from their positions as justices of the Paraguayan Supreme Court. In this regard, the Commission considers that this had to do with a sanction proceeding that involved the punitive power of the State, and thus the applicable guarantees include, analogously, those applicable to a criminal proceeding. Of particular relevance for the analysis of this case are the guarantees established in Articles 8(1), 8(2), and 9 of the American Convention. 47. Specifically, in terms of impeachment and its application for the removal of justice operators, the Inter-American Court has indicated that impeachment “must observe due process in order to ensure the principle of judicial independence with respect to high ranking judges subjected to that procedure.”26 For its part, the IACHR has indicated, with regard to impeachment, that it should be used only exceptionally as a mechanism to remove judges, since by its very nature it could create certain risks to particular guarantees that must be strictly observed in these circumstances. As a result, if the legislature has jurisdictional authority in cases involving the removal of judges, this must not constitute political control over judicial activity based on criteria of discretion or political expediency but must consist of legal oversight, in absolute compliance with the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws) and with due process guarantees.27 48. The Commission has stressed that “the use of impeachment in the case of justice operators should be gradually eliminated in the region, as impeachment poses a significant threat to judicial independence.”28 2. Competence of the disciplinary authority and respective proceedings 49. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes the right to a hearing “by a competent (...) tribunal, previously established by law.” Thus, people “have the right to be tried, in general, by a competent tribunal, in accordance with legally established procedures.” The State must not create tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process “to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals.”29 50. States have the authority to design and organize disciplinary proceedings in the domestic sphere. Such proceedings should be applied in accordance with pre-established procedures that indicate the authorities and the procedural rules that apply. 30 Such a guarantee is met when the disciplinary authority originates in a statute established before the proceedings31 and, correspondingly, such a law is violated when the disciplinary body lacks the competence established by law.32 51. The European Court of Human Rights, in interpreting Article 6§1 of the European Co nvention, which establishes that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” has indicated that the object of the term “established by law” is to ensure that the organization of the judicial system in a democratic society does not depend on the 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. 26 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 84. 27 IACHR, Report No. 43/15, Case 12.632. Merits (Publication). Adriana Beatriz Gallo, Ana María Careaga, and Silvia Maluf de Christin, Argentina, July 28, 2015, paras. 135-137. 28 IACHR, 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. 205. 29 I/A Court. H.R., Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2009. Series C No. 206, para. 75; Principle 5, United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Milan, Italy, from August 26 to September 6, 1985. 30 IACHR, 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. 187. 31 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. 32 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. 13