18. The petitioners said that on February 7, 2001, the alleged victim filed an application for reconsideration (recurso de queja) with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, challenging the ruling described in the preceding paragraph. However, the application was refused on August 28, 2001. 19. The facts and proceedings in relation to the alleged victim are examined in detail in the Commission's analysis as to facts based on the information furnished by both parties. What follows is a summary of the main legal submissions advanced by the petitioners. 20. They argued that the state violated the right to a fair trial due to the manner of appointment of the members of the Impeachment Jury, which offered no guarantees in terms of tenure or protection from external pressure. On that point, they alleged the violation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal. In that connection, they also held that the right of defense was violated since the alleged victim was prevented from questioning witnesses or having witnesses or experts offered by him appear in the proceedings. They said that the Impeachment Jury thus prevented the alleged victim from submitting evidence to clarify the truth of the charges against him. 21. They argue that the State violated the right to judicial protection because the dismissal was never subjected to judicial review at either the provincial or federal level. They added in that regard that all the remedies invoked by the alleged victim were rejected on formal grounds, without any review as to merits. 22. Finally, they argued that the State violated the principle of legality on the basis that the conduct for which the alleged victim was punished was not classified in the punitive framework and the facts were not properly accredited. B. The State 23. As of the date of adoption of this report the State had not presented its additional observations on merits. Therefore, this section is based on the arguments put forward by the State during the admissibility stage that have a bearing on the merits of the matter. 24. The State referred in broad terms to the nature of the Impeachment Jury, saying that it is a political body and that its judging criteria is based on political discretion, which means that the advisability of a judge continuing in office or not it is analyzed in the light of their conduct. It added that the Jury is composed of lawyers and lawmakers who are not judges and that their decision is not subject to appeal unless it is found that there has been a violation of due process. 25. As to the proceeding against the alleged victim, it argued that it was political in nature and that it underwent a judicial review as a result of the challenge presented by Mr. Rico alleging violations of due process. The State said that the appeal bodies did not accept the violations of due process and, therefore, denied the appeals lodged. 26. It said that although the Impeachment Jury is not a judicial body, that does not mean that the process in which the removal of a judge is decided does not have to meet certain domestic and international human rights standards. It held that the alleged victim was afforded all the guarantees of a fair trial. 27. As to law, the State denied any violation of rights protected by the American Convention. The State contended that there had been no violation of the right to a hearing by an independent, impartial tribunal. It said that the petitioners did not offer any evidence to show the existence of external pressures on the Impeachment Jury that might call into doubt its independence. 28. In addition, as regards the right to an impartial tribunal, the State argued that the petitioners made no mention of having sought the recusal of the members of the Jury during the proceeding. In relation