- 78 case. The Court considers that the dismissal of the presumed victims, under a procedure that was
not established by law and that did not respect the guarantees of competence, independence and
impartiality, unduly affected the right to remain in office under conditions of equality of Adán
Guillermo López Lone, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza and Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, in
violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention. This violation did not occur in the case of
Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, who, ultimately, was not dismissed from his post as a result of
the facts of this case; consequently, the Court will not declare this right violated in his case.
D. Conclusion on the guarantees of due process and political rights
239. Based on all the above, the Court concludes that: the disciplinary proceedings to which the
presumed victims were subjected were not instituted in accordance with the law; the Judicial
Service Council did not have competence and lacked the necessary independence to decide appeals
against dismissal rulings by the Supreme Court of Justice; the way in which the Judicial Service
Council was incorporated to decide the appeals filed by the presumed victims did not provide a
sufficient guarantee of its impartiality, and the Supreme Court of Justice did not provide objective
guarantees of impartiality to rule on the presumed disciplinary offenses of the presumed victims,
insofar as all the said conducts related to the coup d’état.
240. Consequently, taking into account the findings in paragraphs 148 to 155 of this judgment, the
State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to
the detriment of Adán Guillermo López Lone, Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, Luis Alonso Chévez de
la Rocha and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, as well as in relation to Article 23(1)(c) and 1(1)
of the same instrument, owing to the arbitrary impairment of tenure in their judicial functions and
the consequent harm to judicial independence, of Adán Guillermo López Lone, Tirza del Carmen
Flores Lanza and Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, who were dismissed from the Judiciary.
E. Other alleged violations of due process in the disciplinary proceedings instituted
against the presumed victims
241. Considering that the Court has determined that the procedure used in the disciplinary
proceedings against the presumed victims was not established by law, and that the organs that held
them did not comply with the guarantees of competence, independence and impartiality at any
stage of the proceedings, it is not necessary to analyze the other guarantees established in Article 8
of the Convention.415 Therefore, the Court finds that it is unnecessary to rule on the alleged
violations of the obligation to indicate the grounds for the decisions, the right of defense, the
presumption of innocence, and the effectiveness of the remedy before the Judicial Service Council.
F. Right to judicial protection
F.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties
242. The Commission argued that: “in view of the lack of impartiality of the Supreme Court of
Justice and the prohibition established in article 31 of the [internal] rules of procedure [of the
Judicial Service Council], the victims did not have access to a remedy designed to protect them
from the violations of due process committed by the Judicial Service Council pursuant to Article 25
of the American Convention.” Regarding the application for amparo, the Commission indicated that
the said rules of procedure indicated expressly that, there was no appeal against the decisions of
the Judicial Service Council, which “constitutes further proof of the lack of access to judicial
protection.” According to the Commission, “the State confirmed that, if an application for amparo
415
Similarly, cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 181; and Case of the
Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 223.