that the absence of motivation might have affected the alleged victims’ rights. The Commission considers that the complete absence of a motivation constitutes in itself a violation of fair trial, included in Article 8.1 of the Convention. 87. Furthermore, the Commission takes cognizance that in the legal framework of the assessment and ratification proceeding, they did not establish the duly delimitated causes that would allow the alleged victims to understand the concrete conduct assessed by the NCM and which of them might be considered as serious offenses, justifying the non-ratification, and, thus, the non-permanence in the role. The regulations are limited to indicate the aspects to assess by the NCM, which were “the conduct and aptitude incumbent on the role in the role’s fulfillment,” considering as base, in generic terms, “judicial production, merits, and reports of Bar Associations and background on their conduct.” Moreover, the assessment and ratification proceeding was qualified as a confidence vote in the applicable legal framework and the case law of the Constitutional Court of Peru, so the decision of ratifying a magistrate was adopted “according to the criterion of each councilor” voting at the NCM’s respective session. 88. The Commission estimates that the discretion of councilors, in the interviews’ framework, allowed them, as some petitioners alleged and the State did not dispute, to ask questions on matters unrelated to the judicial function, such as sexual preference, reasons for single state, or questions on their judicial activities as the reasons for the filing of certain complaints. 89. The Commission considers that, in the present case, the absence of clearly delimitated causes, the absence of motivation of the resolutions determining the non-ratification of the alleged victims, and the discretion granted to each councilor, considering the assessment and ratification proceeding as a confidence vote, were incompatible with the justice operators’ strengthened stability principle, since the petitioners were subjected to an absolutely punitive proceeding, during which they made use of a control based on the “convenience” of the magistrates’ permanence in their roles, and there was no purely legal monitoring as there shall be in cases like these so as to insure true accountability and the judicial operators’ aptitude incumbent on the role, based on objective criteria. 90. By virtue of the previous considerations, the IACHR estimates that the Peruvian State violated the right to have motivated decisions and the lawfulness principle established in Articles 8.1 and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 of this document, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse, and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna. 3. The right to appeal the judgment89 and legal protection90 91. The ICHR recalls that the right to appeal against a judgment is part of the legal due process of a disciplinary punitive proceeding91 and it is a principal safeguard aiming at preventing the consolidation of an unfair situation.92 Regarding the scope of the right to appeal, both the IACHR and the Court have indicated that it implies an examination conducted by a different judge or court and of a higher rank, regarding findings of fact and law of the appealed to decision.93 It shall be admissible before the judgment is considered res judicata, it shall be solved within a reasonable term, it shall be timely and effective, i.e. it shall provide a result or response to its original aim. Moreover, it must accessible, without requiring further formalities that might turn this right into something illusory.94 Article 8. 2 h establishes the “right to resort to the judgment before a judge or a superior court.” Article 25.1 of the Convention establishes that: Every person has the right to a simple and fast remedy or to any other type of effective remedy before the competent judges or court, that protects them against acts violating their fundamental rights acknowledged by the Constitution, the law of the present Convention, even when said violation is committed by people acting exercising their official functions. 91 IACHR, Independence remedies for justice operators. The Road toward Strengthening the Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 235; IAHR Court, Case Vélez Loor vs. Panama. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218. Para. 179. 92IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12,820, Manfred Amrhein and others, Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para. 186. 93IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12,820, Manfred Amrhein and others, Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para. 186. 94IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12,820, Manfred Amrhein and others, Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para. 186 ff. 89 90 17