since the Constitution of 1979 included a permanent assessment mechanism for magistrates, conducted by the Supreme Court, thus, the Constitution of 1993 only changed the controlling body to the NCM. Regarding legal protection, it indicated that the said right was not violated, since there was a remedy available against the NCM’s decisions. It said that some appeal petitions were favorable. 21. During the admissibility stage, the State acknowledged legal protection violations, indicating that when Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse were dismissed, there was no judicial or administrative remedy to question the resolutions of the National Council of the Magistracy. At the merits stage, the State indicated that it did not violate the right to legal protection to the detriment of Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodriguez Ricse, considering that they did not exhaust domestic remedies. Moreover, they did not bring up the appeal petition, since, even though it was forbidden to submit remedies against the NCM’s resolutions, the judges made an interpretation based on international treaties on human rights, ratified by Peru, which allowed the annulment of the resolutions and the reinstatement of the magistrates in other cases. 22. Regarding political rights, it said that the ratification was a confidence vote, and that even though the legislation established that those non-ratified could not re-enter their judicial careers, in 2003, the Constitutional Court indicated that non-ratification could not imply the impossibility of re-entering the judicial branch. The State also said that it complied with its duty to adopt domestic law provisions, since the assessment and ratification proceeding for judges and prosecutors is compatible with the American Convention. III. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Relevant legal framework 23. The alleged victims were dismissed as a consequence of the assessment and ratification proceeding for judges and prosecutors, which was regulated by the Political Constitution, in the NCM’s Organizational Law and the Regulations Governing the Assessment and Ratification of Judges of the Judicial Branch and Prosecutors of the Public Ministry, whose most important regulations are cited below. 24. The Political Constitution establishes in the conducive articles that: Article 154. Powers of the National Council of the Magistracy. The powers of the National Council of the Magistracy are as follows: (…) 2. To ratify judges and prosecutors of all categories, once every seven years. Those nonratified cannot re-enter the Judicial Branch or the Public Ministry. The ratification proceeding is separate from disciplinary measures. Article 142. Resolutions that cannot be overturned by the Judicial Branch. The resolutions of the National Electoral Board in electoral matters and of the National Council of the Magistracy in assessment and ratification of judges matters cannot be overturned in legal court.3 25. follows: Furthermore, the Organizational Law of the National Council of the Magistracy indicates as Article 2. It is the National Council of the Magistracy’s duty to select, appoint, ratify, and dismiss judges and prosecutors of all categories, except when they are elected by the people. In this case, the NCM can only grant the capacity and apply the dismissal punishment when necessary, pursuant to law. The decisions on matters referred to in the previous paragraph cannot be overturned in legal court. Their decisions are unchallengeable. 3 Political Constitution of Peru enacted on December 29, 1993. 4