permanence and tenure of the serving judges, while the good conduct and aptitude incumbent on the role were assessed. However, he was dismissed without presenting unfitting or improper conduct, or being charged for the latter. He said that no predetermined grounds were appealed to in the non-ratification resolution that motivated the adopted decision. Petitioner Valenzuela Cerna also referred to the retrospective application of the Constitution of 1993, since his employment was regulated by the Constitution of 1979. 14. Concerning the right to a fair trial and legal protection, they indicated that the said rights were violated, since the resolutions were unmotivated and no charges against them arose from these resolutions, so that they could defend themselves. They also mentioned the impossibility of challenging the NCM’s non-ratification resolutions. Particularly, Mr. Cuya Lavy indicated that he was not allowed to submit evidence or arguments in his favor, and that he was refused the access to the court records, since the proceeding was secret. Mr. Valenzuela Cerna said that the NCM passed a resolution, declaring its non-ratification in his absence. 15. With respect to political rights, they indicated that their right to access to public service, since the NCM’s resolutions imply a perpetual punishment because they entail the permanent impossibility of returning to the Judicial Branch or the Public Ministry, refusing them the access to public service. They indicated that the NCM made use of subjective, discretionary, and arbitrary criteria to decide the nonratification, which affects the justice operators’ independence. Regarding the duty to adopt domestic law provisions, they indicated that the legal code applied to them was not consistent with the Inter-American system’s standards on the necessary safeguards for judges and government officials. B. State 16. The State indicated that Article 154, subparagraph 2 of the Peruvian Constitution includes the assessment and ratification proceeding for judges and prosecutors of all categories once every seven years. It indicated that this proceeding is an assessment carried out by NCM’s members, regarding the conduct and aptitude incumbent on the role, considering the judicial production, merits, and reports of Bar Associations and background on their conduct. Moreover, it said that within the said proceeding, those under assessment were interviewed. It indicated that, based on the said elements, the NCM adopted a decision on the ratification or non-ratification of those under assessment. It alleged that the dismissal did not constitute a penalty or deprive them of the rights acquired pursuant to law, and that there was the possibility of challenging the resolution by means of a special remedy and an appeal of relief, in the case of due process violations. 17. It indicated that the summons to ratification proceedings began in 2000, after seven years of the 1993 Constitution's effectiveness. In general terms, it stated that the said proceeding was incompatible with the American Convention and that its objective was to strengthen the Judicial Branch’s independence by means of an assessment for judges and prosecutors, conducted by an autonomous body. 18. The State firstly acknowledged that during the assessment and ratification proceedings, unmotivated resolutions were passed and that only the people personally interviewed were the ones indicated by the Council plenary or at the express request of the magistrates, and no appeal was allowed. However, later on, through Law No. 28237, the motivation for assessment and ratification resolutions was added as a requirement, and the right to challenge these resolutions was acknowledged, if the resolutions were unmotivated and/or if the right to a hearing was not granted. It informed that the Regulations Governing the Assessment and Ratification of magistrates of the Judicial Branch and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry was approved in 2005, in which the obligatory nature of the motivation and personal interview with the magistrate is acknowledged. 19. Regarding the law, the State recognized violations of the right to a fair trial and indicated that it did not violate the freedom from ex post facto laws principle, the rights to legal protection, political rights, and the duty to adopt domestic law provisions. 20. With respect to the right to a fair trial, it said that the absence of motivation of the NCM’s resolutions affected the due process; therefore, friendly settlement proceedings were initiated in other cases. As regards the freedom from ex post facto laws principle, the State indicated that it did not violate the said right, 3