how that extension adversely affected his right of defense. Regarding the denial of evidence, it held that the reasons for the rejection were not manifestly unreasonable or incompatible with the applicable standards. The State agreed with the Commission's position. c) Right to a reasoned decision 46. The Commission and the representatives indicated that the way the reasoning was presented impaired the possibility of knowing with any clarity and certainty which facts the jury considered proven, and the reasons why they were consistent with the disciplinary grounds that were established. The State reviewed the answers of the jurors to some of the questions asked in the debate prior to the verdict and, on this basis, argued that there was a reasoning based both on the facts and on the applicable rules of law. Finally, it also pointed out that the way the verdict was structured or the wording of the verdict is not within the jurisdiction of the Court. d) Right to appeal the judgment to a higher judge or court 47. The Commission and the representatives considered that the jurisprudence of the Court recognizes the application of Article 8(2)(h) to trials of a non-criminal punitive nature, providing the possibility of appealing to a higher hierarchical authority to obtain a review of the established facts, the evidence used or the causes applied. However, they found it proven that the sanction imposed by the Impeachment Jury did not allow the possibility of judicial review, except in cases of violation of due process, which does not satisfy this guarantee. 48. The State pointed out that there are no grounds for extending the scope of application of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention to proceedings in which the conduct of a judge is evaluated and his or her removal from office is eventually decided. It mentioned that there is a remedy in place, through case law, the REF, by virtue of which the decision can be judicially reviewed. Furthermore, Argentina argued that the text of the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary does not contain any express reference to a review of the decision of dismissal by a hierarchical superior in the terms of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, but refers to "an independent review", a requirement that is perfectly covered by a judicial review. The State added that the position taken by the Commission implies an undue involvement in aspects beyond its competence, such as the institutional design of this type of mechanisms aimed at the determination of political and not judicial responsibilities as such. B. Considerations of the Court 49. The Court has defined due process of law, based on the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention, as the set of requirements that must be observed in procedural instances so that individuals are in a position to adequately defend their rights in the face of any type of act of the State that may affect them.27 According to Article 8.1 of the Convention, in the determination of the rights and obligations of all persons, whether criminal, civil, labor, fiscal or of any other nature, "due guarantees" must be observed to ensure, depending on the procedure in question, the right to a fair trial. Failure to comply with one of these guarantees entails a violation of said conventional provision.28 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 63. 28 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (arts. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 28, Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, para. 64. 27 -14-