1996, by the National Council of the Judiciary with the same composition as ordered his sanction—that is, it was not reviewed by a higher court. 94. It also recalls that the amparo was declared without merit by the First Specialized Public Law Court of Lima on June 2, 1997, which concluded that the CNM acted in strict adherence to its functions and with all due respect for its legal authorities. 95. In the same regard, the appeal filed by Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez was denied on November 3, 1997, by the Provisional Corporate Chamber Specialized in Public Law, which argued that pursuant to article 142 of the Political Constitution of the State, resolutions of the CNM are not reviewable by the judiciary, and that whether or not he continued to hold the office of judge depended on ratification by the National Council of the Judiciary. 96. Lastly, the special remedy filed before the Constitutional Tribunal was denied with the finding that the process complied with all “essential due process guidelines.” 97. In view of this, the IACHR finds that both the legal framework and the content of the decisions show there was no remedy—neither administrative nor judicial—for securing comprehensive review by a higher authority of the ruling to sanction. Likewise, the content of the amparo decisions indicate that the competent bodies did not carry out a comprehensive examination of the aspects of fact and law surrounding the decision to dismiss the alleged victim, limiting the scope of competency to questions of process. 98. Based on this, the Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the rights established in articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Humberto Cajahuanca Vásquez. B. The right to participate in government (Article 23 65 of the Convention) 100. Article 23(1)(c) establishes the right of judges to access public offices “on the basis of equal opportunity.” The Court has interpreted this article by finding that “when a judge’s tenure is arbitrarily impaired, the right to judicial independence recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention is violated, as is the right of access to public service and tenure, under general conditions of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c).”66 101. In this case, it has been established that Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez was removed from his position in a process in which violations of both due process and the principle of legality were committed, as described throughout this report on the merits. It was likewise established that the disciplinary process carried out was not compatible with the principle of judicial independence. Under the circumstances, and pursuant to the criteria described in the foregoing paragraph, the Commission finds that the State also violated Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Humberto Cajahuanca Vásquez. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 102. The Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial, the principle of legality, the right to participate in government, and the right to judicial protection, established in articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9, 23(1)(c), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Humberto Cajahuanca Vásquez. 103. Based on the above conclusions, Article 23 of the American Convention establishes the following in its relevant parts: 1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: (...) c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings. 66IACHR, Report No. 72/17, Case 13,019. Merits. Eduardo Rico. Argentina. July 5, 2017, para. 124; Inter-American Court. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 192. 65 18