55. On October 11, 2019, the Constitutional Chamber “[declared the nullity] of the notifications of Judgment No. 951 of December 30, 2009, served […] on the National Congress, the Judicial Council, and other State organs.” To this end, it argued, among other matters, that “the said notifications ha[d]not been ordered” by that Chamber and that “the judgment notified no longer had legal effects because it had been declared invalid by Resolution No. 2382 of January 5, 2010, […] a resolution that ha[d] become final.”71 E. Criminal proceedings against Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea 56. On December 17, 2003, several members of the National Congress “informed the Public Prosecution Service” of facts relating to the impeachment proceedings against the presumed victims, and asked this body “to examine the complaints filed by the Chamber of Deputies before the Senate […] in order to determine whether there were sufficient grounds to file criminal proceedings.”72 57. Also, on November 1, 2005, the Fourth Criminal Judge of Guarantees issued a ruling in which he “[rejected] the complaint filed” and “[ordered] the closure of the case.”73 VII MERITS 58. The instant case concerns the alleged violation of various rights in relation to the impeachment proceedings that culminated in the removal of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea from their functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Paraguay. This Court will proceed to make the corresponding analysis in the following order: (a) right to judicial guarantees in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights, and alleged violations of the protection of honor and dignity, and equality before the law, and (b) rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, in relation to the obligations to respect and to ensure rights. VII.1 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS,74 AND ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF PROTECTION OF HONOR AND DIGNITY, AND EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW 75 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties A.1. General considerations on judicial independence and the guarantees applicable to impeachment proceedings 59. The Commission argued that only those impeachment proceedings against judges “in Cf. Resolution A.I.N. No. 1932 of October 11, 2019, issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which is included in the file of the actions of unconstitutionality filed by Bonifacio Ríos Avalos against Resolutions Nos. 122 and 134 of the Senate of the Republic of Paraguay (evidence file, volume V, annex 8.4. to the answering brief, folios 11769 and 11770). 72 Cf. Brief of December 13, 2003, sent by members of the National Congress to the Prosecutor General (evidence file, volume IV, annex IX.A. to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8451 and 8452). 73 Cf. Ruling identified as A.I. No. 1755 of November 1, 2005, issued by the Fourth Criminal Judge of Guarantees in case No. 1-1-2-1-2004-1697, entitled “Luis Lezcano Claude and others re/atypical act” (evidence file, volume IV, annex IX.B. to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 8454 to 8460). 74 Article 8 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 75 Articles 11 and 24 of the American Convention. 71 18