8. The petitioner submitted his observations on September 22, 2011; February 6, April 3, June 25, and May 28, 2012; and January 28, 2014, which were forwarded to the State. It bears mentioning that the petitioner has transmitted notes each time requesting prompt attention to his petition. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 9. The petitioner states that in 2001, in his capacity as Prosecutor for Criminal Unit No. 10, he began to investigate a series of acts of corruption in both the public and private sectors, trafficking in stolen vehicles, organized crime, criminal association, contraband, tax evasion, and money laundering in respect of the political sector and entrepreneurs with influence in the government. He indicates that among those being investigated were the son of a former President of the Republic and Cristian Paolo Ortiz, also known as “Planta Ortiz,” as well as the Dures, a married couple. He alleges that “in order to remove him from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which was investigating them,” two proceedings were instituted against him before the JEM, the body responsible for prosecuting and removing persons who work as prosecutors in the Public Prosecutor’s Office. 10. He argues that the individuals he was investigating had asked the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State (hereinafter “FGE”) as early as April 2001 to strip him of his prosecutor’s post. He states that the FGE had warned him that he should be careful and “that he should not break the rules of the game,” that it would let him know when a case was to be opened against him, “that a door was opening for them to destroy [him] and that they could take [him] to the Jury.” He assumes that given the inability of the FGE to prevent those investigations, which were not handled by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the State, from being conducted, the first formal complaint had to be brought against him, as provided for in Laws 1.084 and 1.752, which govern proceedings before the JEM. 11. He points out that, on March 12, 2002, Cristian Paolo Ortiz lodged that first complaint against him, for poor performance of his duties. He alleges that the complaint did not meet the requirements under law since the complainant had provided as proof of his economic solvency a property that had been seized by order of the court in the investigation against him, which means that the necessary bond had not been posted. He states that he complained to the JEM that Mr. Ortiz’s complaint “was simply intended to remove him from that case and from [his] prosecutor’s post so that emphasis would no longer be placed on investigations of that type,” but the JEM decided to initiate its processing of the complaint, on May 22, 2002. 12. He claims that said proceeding violated Article 8 of the American Convention. In this connection, he maintains that even before the investigation against him was launched, the President of the JEM, without the vote of the other members of the Jury, first requested and then called on the petitioners to turn over the file of the investigation on the supposedly illegal origin of the automobile owned by the Office of the President of the Republic. He contends that he challenged the President and the other members of the JEM, but since it is the JEM itself that rules on the challenge, it was rejected. He claims that he was also suspended from his functions by the President of the JEM, who, along with other JEM magistrates, was also being investigated by the petitioner for crimes of corruption. 13. He alleges that had access to the draft of a final judgment against him that had been drawn up by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, allegedly by order of the FGE. He therefore made it available to the press and, on October 30, 2002, submitted it to a notary public for notarization. 14. He claims that the JEM issued judgment No. 2/03 in his case on April 7, 2003, seven months after expiration of the 180-day period provided for in Law 1084, the same day on which the petitioner made a formal accusation and a request for parliamentary impeachment of the President of the JEM in the investigation of trafficking in vehicles. He maintains that the JEM decided to remove him from his post. Likewise, he alleges that the JEM convicted him for acts other than those denounced and that they were not discussed in the evidentiary hearing, in violation of the principle of consistency and due process guarantees. He indicates that he filed a petition for clarification, which was rejected. He points out that, in view of that rejection, on April 22,