-15Constitutional Division ordered his reinstatement and clarified that the Legislative Assembly had to guarantee the right to a hearing so that the dismissal would be in following with the Constitution. After a procedure carried out before the Legislative Assembly, on July 2, 1998, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was dismissed again. The alleged victim filed various appeals against this decision and none were considered to have grounds for continuing. 57. The Commission and the representatives maintain that the dismissals of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg were carried out with no legal basis and in violation of his right to judicial guarantees, political rights, judicial protection, and the principle of legality. The State, for its part, emphasized that the dismissal process was in accordance with the law, for which it is not internationally responsible. According to the arguments of the parties and the Commission, in this case, the Court will examine the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, political rights, and the principle of legality. VI-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES90, JUDICIAL PROTECTION91 AND POLITICAL RIGHTS92, RELATED TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS93, AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LEGAL PROVISIONS94 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 58. The Commission argued that “the Constitution did not expressly attribute the Legislative Assembly the power to dismiss or remove TSE judges,” and there was no regulation on the procedure to be followed. In this regard, it stressed that the ruling by the Constitutional Division "cannot, in itself, replace the function of the law in offering [...] the necessary legal certainty in terms of the predictability of the competent authority" and the procedure to be followed. It pointed out that “it was a sanctioning proceeding that aimed to evaluate [its] conduct […] as a judge of the [TSE], which culminated in the sanction of dismissal.” Also it argued that the removal of the alleged victim was carried out by a political body, which, in itself, “results in problems with the guarantee of independence.” It also indicated that in this case, the guarantee of impartiality fulfilled, since “the PDC deputies in the Legislative Assembly therefore formed part of the disciplinary body, had the intention of sanctioning Judge Colindres for his actions in cases involving the PDC, having a vested interest in the outcome of such cases.” It alleged that the duty to state reasons had been violated since neither of the two decrees that ordered the alleged victim's dismissal described “specific acts committed by Mr. Colindres” that could be linked to possible disciplinary grounds. It also highlighted that the lack of regulation "had a severe impact on the opportunities and predictability for Judge Colindres to be able to exercise his means of defense." Likewise, it indicated that “the period of three days [granted to Mr. Colindres] to exercise [his] Article 8(1) of the Convention provides: “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.” 91 Article 25(1) of the Convention provides: “ Everyone has the right to simple and pro or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” 92 Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention provides: “[e]very citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities: […] to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country.” 93 Article 1.1 of the Convention provides: “[T]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 94 Article 2 of the Convention establishes that “Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.” 90