…the records having been analyzed, especially the judgments being challenged as unconstitutional, no violation whatsoever of a constitutional or a legal nature can be seen. In point of fact, with regard to the alleged violation of the right to a defense at trial, the members of the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates made an objective assessment of the evidence provided both by the accuser and the accused. …In terms of the principle of consistency, although it is true that the initial document of complaint did not indicate directly that the accused, by intervening in Case No. 9936, was infringing on Resolution No. 68 issued by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State, the record shows that the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates acted in accordance with the provisions governing the process, specifically Article 21, subparagraph (h), which gives it the authority to order, at any stage in the proceedings, any procedural steps that may be necessary to shed light on the facts. …With regard to the assessment of the evidence done by the magistrates judging the case, it should be noted that the resolution being challenged shows clearly that they analyzed and evaluated, in accordance with the principle of sound judgment, the various witness statements provided in the records to reach the conclusions at which they arrived.24 IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW 1. General considerations on applicable guarantees and the principle of judicial independence 58. Both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court have repeatedly held that, in general, the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not limited to criminal proceedings but apply to proceedings of any other nature.25 In the case of sanction proceedings specifically, both bodies of the human rights system have indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention apply analogously,26 as does the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws established in Article 9 of the same instrument.27 In terms of other proceedings in which rights or interests may be addressed, the “due guarantees” established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention apply, including the right to sufficient grounds for decisions. 28 The determination of what are the “due guarantees” in a specific proceeding to determine a person’s rights should be made in accordance with the nature of the process and the legal rights at play.29 59. Accordingly, to determine what guarantees the State has the obligation to grant in the case at hand, it is necessary to refer to the nature of the proceeding in question. 60. This case involves a proceeding held before the Jury for the Prosecution of Magistrates, which concluded with the decision to remove the alleged victim from his post as Prosecutor. In this regard, the Commission considers that this was a sanction proceeding that involved the punitive power of the State, and that therefore the applicable guarantees include those that apply analogously to a criminal proceeding. Specifically, for the Annex xx, Supreme Court, Agreement and Judgment No. 915 of June 16, 2004, Attached to the initial petition of December 27, 2004. 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. 26 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 2, Series C. No. 72, paras. 126-127. See also: IACHR, Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. A Review of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129, September 7, 2007, paras. 98-123; and Case No. 12.828, Report 112/12, Marcel Granier et al., Venezuela, Merits, November 9, 2012, para. 188. 27 I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 2, Series C. No. 72, para. 106. 28 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, para. 136; I/A Court H.R, Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 13, 2011, Series C. No. 234, para. 118; and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 19, 2006, Series C No. 151, para. 118. 29 I/A Court H.R, Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 13, 2011, Series C. No. 234, paras. 118-119. 24 25 11