removal of judges gives rise to objective concerns about the real possibility of judges deciding specific disputes without fear of reprisals.33 56. Along the same lines, the Court has analyzed impeachment procedures and its possible interference with the principle of judicial independence. In the Constitutional Court v. Peru case, the Court specified the content of impeachment procedures and affirmed that it is a means of controlling senior officials of both the Executive and other State organs exercised by the Legislature, the purpose of which is that an organ that represents the people may examine and take decisions on the actions of senior officials.34 57. Despite the foregoing, the Court did not find that, in abstracto, the mechanism of removal of judges via impeachment was contrary to the Convention and, in particular, to the principle of judicial independence, but analyzed to what extent the factual circumstances constituted violations of the guarantees foreseen in Article 8(1).35 Impeachments in which the removal of members of the Judiciary are discussed are not contrary to the Convention per se, as long as Article 8 is complied with and there are criteria to limit the discretion of the judge with a view to protecting the guarantee of independence. 58. This, in turn, finds meaning in the fact that this Court has not established a particular procedural system that “correctly” satisfies the framework of guarantees contained in the Convention, but has instead respected the freedom of State-parties to determine what they consider appropriate, as long as those guarantees are complied with within the framework of the former.36 59. In this regard, it is important to mention the specific meaning of impeachment in Argentine law. As indicated by the State: "the democratically representative element of the composition of the [jury] is in keeping with the nature of its competence and with the principles that emerge from republican democracy. [...] the system of 'checks and balances' inherent to the republican constitutional framework suggests that the body in charge of the proceedings should be different from the one being questioned".37 60. In the instant case, the representatives alleged a violation of the right to an independent tribunal due to the composition of the Impeachment Jury and the political discretion on the basis of which it rules. Based on the foregoing, the Court must establish whether the proceedings before the Impeachment Jury of the Province of Buenos Aires violate Article 8(1) and, in particular, the principle of judicial independence. 61. First, regarding the composition of the Impeachment Jury, the Court notes that "the political element" or the proportion of jurors coming from the Legislative Branch is not a majority and is modulated by the requirement that they are elected from a list composed only of those members who are lawyers and meet the requirements to be a member of the SCJBA.38 Thus, Article 182 of the Constitution of the Province of Buenos Aires provides that: "[t]he judges of appellate courts and courts of first instance [...] may be denounced or accused by any Argentine national for criminal offenses or minor offenses committed in the Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, paras. 198 and 200, and Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, para. 105. 34 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 63. 35 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266. para. 180. 36 Cf. Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 66, Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 219, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, para. 149. 37 State's brief of final arguments (merits file, folios 563 and 568, referring to the explanatory memorandum of Law 13.661, on amendments to Law 8085, of April 24, 2007. 38 Cf. Articles 2 of Law 8085. 33 -16-