violations as follows: a) Mr. Rico's right to judicial guarantees; b) Mr. Rico's right to judicial protection; and c) Principle of legality and Mr. Rico's right to participate in government. VII.1. MR. RICO'S RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 41. The representatives considered that the process carried out for the purpose of removing Eduardo Rico from his office violated the guarantees contained in Articles 8(1) and 8(2) of the Convention, in particular, the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal; the right to a defense and other judicial guarantees; the right to a reasoned judgment, and the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court to the detriment of Mr. Rico. For its part, the Commission considered that the State was responsible for violating the right to a reasoned judgment, and the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court to the detriment of Mr. Rico. a) Right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal 42. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to have an independent tribunal, the Commission pointed out that the decisive say of the legislative branch in punitive proceedings against judges is problematic and constitutes, per se, a source of risk to the independent exercise of such a function. However, the Commission acknowledged that in this case there is no evidence to infer a real infringement of this right. It indicated that in the present case the rules on composition of the Impeachment Jury were previously established by law. With respect to the guarantee of impartiality, it found no concrete elements that point to the fact that the Impeachment Jury that heard the case acted politically motivated in such a way that its subjective impartiality was compromised. 43. For their part, the representatives argued that the Impeachment Jury is not a court of justice that issues acts of a jurisdictional nature due to its composition and decision-making criteria. In addition, they argued that this right was affected because the mechanism by which the Jury is composed, by drawing lots after the complaint, generated difficulties in resisting external pressures. Regarding the right to an impartial judge, they alleged the violation based on the positions held by some members of the jury, as the person who brought the accusation and was the Vice-President of the Council of the Magistracy, and the President of the Jury was also the President of the Council of the Magistracy. 44. The State reiterated the Commission's position in relation to the absence of evidence to prove the violation of impartiality or the impairment of independence due to the presence of legislators on the jury. It also emphasized that the existence of a political element in the composition of the tribunal is due to reasons of institutional balance, which is a subject outside the material competence of this Court and cannot constitute a violation of the Convention. b) Right to defense and other judicial guarantees 45. The representatives affirmed that, in the framework of the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rico, his right to a defense established in Article 8(2) of the Convention was violated, due to the arbitrary extension of the deadline for discovery to the detriment of the accused party and the denial of essential evidence for his defense based on merely formalistic arguments. On this point, the Commission found no violation, affirming that throughout the proceedings there was an extension of the time limit for preliminary discovery, but it considered that this possibility was envisaged in law and that the petitioner did not explain -13-