hearing of the imposed sanction by a higher court, independently of the judicial remedy for possible violations of due process, and (iv) Ensure that the judicial remedy for possible violations of due process in this type of procedure is accessible and simple and allows a ruling on the merits. 201. The representatives requested: a) Mr. Cuya Lavy: (i) Adopt legislative, normative, administrative and practical measures that guarantee due process within the framework of the evaluation and ratification processes of judges, adapted to the guarantees and rights established in the American Convention and international instruments; (ii) Adopt objective and proportional criteria for evaluation, based on a legal review, previously specifying in the applicable regulations the offenses that give rise to the disapproval or nonratification of the position of judge and the positions on which the defense relies ; (iii) Have recourse to appeal to a higher authority in the evaluation or sanctioning processes, in order to guarantee a second review by a higher court, without prejudice to the judicial remedy for possible violations of due process, all of the conditions provided for in the internal regulations; (iv) Ensure that judicial remedy regarding ratifications is accessible and simple and allows a substantive pronouncement, simplifying cases of inadmissibility for processing, and (v) Establish that the effects of the non-ratification of a judge or prosecutor have temporary and reasonable effectiveness (maximum 5 years, considering international standards), in such a way as to guarantee access to public office, at the same time suppressing its permanent effects. b) Mr. Valenzuela Cerna: Adopt measures regarding the evaluation of magistrates to guarantee a disciplinary regime for judges in accordance with international standards on the matter, as well as establish objective regulations regarding the evaluation process of members of the judiciary, ensuring that these are related to the performance of the work, leaving aside personal and subjective aspects of each magistrate. In addition, they requested guarantee of the right to stability in office, as well as respect for political rights 202. The State argued the following: a) Regarding Mr. Cuya Lavy: (a) It alleged that it has been proven that the ratification procedure is (currently) compatible with inter-American standards and with the guarantees of judicial independence; (b) It indicated that ratification is not an arbitrary procedure, but rather obeys criteria of suitability and good conduct that judges and prosecutors must observe; (c) The current development of the evaluation and ratification procedure considers the existence of a reconsideration remedy and commented that the effectiveness of the writ of amparo was demonstrated to guarantee that the adoption of ratification decisions is in accordance with the guarantees of due process, and (d) It reiterated that, through the case law of the Constitutional Court, it had been determined that the ratification process does not entail a sanction and the prohibition of re-entry to the career of judges or prosecutors was annulled. b) Regarding Mr. Valenzuela Cerna: it clarified that the evaluation measures are not related to the disciplinary procedures of judges and prosecutors, but to the evaluation and ratification procedure, which is provided with guarantees of due process. 203. The Court recalls that Article 2 of the Convention obliges the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures and the provisions of the Convention, the 50