17. He added that his right to be assisted by legal counsel provided by the State was violated, since he did not have a lawyer present when he gave his statement to the Police Internal Affairs Unit on September 18, 2000. 18. He argued that his right to appeal the judgment to a higher court was violated because he did not have recourse to an appeal to challenge the decision that dismissed him from the police and that, therefore, the State had breached its obligation to adopt provisions under domestic law. He added that his right to judicial protection was violated because he was not afforded simple, prompt and effective recourse to determine if there had been a violation of due process in the proceeding that culminated in his dismissal. 19. The petitioner argued that the State had violated the principle of legality because both the competence of the tribunal and the grounds for his punishment were established in regulations, not in a law. B. The State 20. The State said that on September 11, 2000, the alleged victim caused a disturbance at the home of his former live-in partner, physically and verbally abusing her and threatening members of her family by discharging a firearm. It said that the aunt of the petitioner's former live-in partner reported the events to the police, with the result that several members of that institution proceeded to write up a report on the petitioner. It added that the alleged victim responded with insolence to the policemen who were handling the complaint by calling them “dirty cops” and threatened to kill them, saying that he did not care about the consequences because he had been discharged before and had always managed to be reinstated. 21. It said that on September 18, 2000, the petitioner gave a statement to the Judicial Police in relation to the alleged events and that in that statement he recognize having called his superiors “crooked cops.” The State argued that that statement had had no legal relevance within the proceeding conducted before the Disciplinary Tribunal. 22. It said that that same day, the petitioner was notified that a disciplinary proceeding had been instituted against him and that the hearing was not held until October 25, 2000, which meant that he had had enough time to prepare a defense. It also said that he was represented by a lawyer of his choosing. 23. The State said that on October 25, 2000, the Disciplinary Tribunal returned a duly reasoned judgment in which it punished the petitioner with dismissal or discharge from the National Police; it added that all his rights and guarantees were observed in the proceeding. 24. It said that the petitioner was punished for verbal abuse of his superiors, which is recognized as a class III offense in Article 64 of the Police Disciplinary Regulations, and for assault of his former live-in partner, an offense also recognized in Article 64 of the regulations. 25. It said that the petitioner was not prevented from calling witnesses during the hearing and that in the context of the proceeding the Tribunal considered the notations contained in the alleged victim's police file as aggravating circumstances, since they showed that the petitioner "is a violent person accustomed to physically mistreating and harassing his former live-in partner," and that those notations record the petitioner as having undergone a criminal trial for the killing of a minor in 1993 as well as two judgments of the Disciplinary Tribunal against him, one in 1996 and the other in 2000. 26. The State said that the petitioner had had the option of appealing against the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal before the relevant Police Council, in accordance with Articles 55 and 67 of the National Police Personnel Law, but that he had not done so. 27. The State argued that the alleged victim filed an application for constitutional relief against the judgment of the disciplinary tribunal, which was denied on January 18, 2001. The State said that the petitioner had filed an appeal which was denied on March 16, 2001, on the grounds that the petitioner had waived that recourse by failing to appear at the hearing to which he was summoned.