enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention is violated, in conjunction with the right to access and remain in public office, on general terms of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention. 1.2. case Alleged violation of the right to judicial guarantees (fair trial) of the judges in this 156. Having defined the general standards on judicial independence, the Court will now proceed to determine whether the resolution adopted by Congress in which it declared the dismissal of the judges, constituted an arbitrary action that violated the alleged victims’ right to a fair trial. In this regard, Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 157. To determine whether or not some of these guarantees were violated in this case, the Court considers it necessary to examine: i) Congress’s jurisdiction to dismiss the judges; ii) the application of Transitory Provision 25, and iii) whether the judges were heard. 1.2.1. Congress’s jurisdiction to dismiss the judges 158. Under Article 8(1) of the Convention, decisions affecting the rights of persons must be adopted by a competent authority, in accordance with domestic law. In this case, the judges’ dismissal implied a decision on their rights which resulted in their immediate removal from office, for which reason the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention are applicable. Accordingly, the Court shall proceed to determine whether or not Congress had jurisdiction to dismiss the judges. 159. In the instant case, the representatives and the Commission have argued that Congress did not have the authority to investigate, try or punish the judges, and therefore it arrogated to itself a power that did not belong to it. Indeed, one of the amendments made to the 1998 Constitution, specifically Article 130 thereof, removed the National Congress’s authority to impeach justices of the Supreme Court (supra para. 55). The National Congress’s lack of authority to impeach the Supreme Court justices was so clearly established, that after having taken the decision to dismiss them through the application of Transitory Provision 25, the congressmen immediately, and without it being on the agenda, presented a motion for constitutional reform so that Congress would again have jurisdiction to impeach the Supreme Court of Justice 207, which implied a constitutional amendment. This motion was approved by thirty-four votes in favor. 208 160. Furthermore, given that Congress could not impeach the Supreme Court justices in the event that they might commit some disciplinary infraction, on September 22, 2003 the Supreme Court decided to regulate the procedure for hearing complaints submitted against judges (supra para. 62). The Supreme Court, bearing in mind Articles 120 and 199 of the Constitution, which established that no public servant or official would be exempt from responsibilities and the independence of the judicial bodies (supra para. 62), decided to regulate, via the Resolution of September 22, 2003, the proceeding for denouncing, trying and punishing judges. In fact, Article 1 of that Resolution stated that: 207 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 465). 208 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 476). 48