accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, either explicitly or by the inclusion of specific safeguards addressed at their protection. 95 In the case of the Republic of Paraguay, the relevant parts of articles 248, 252 and 255 of the Constitution Nacional should be noted: Article 248. On the independence of the Judiciary. The independence of the Judiciary is guaranteed. […] Anyone who infringes upon the independence of the Judiciary and that of its judges, shall be disqualified from exercising any public office for five consecutive years, in addition to the penalties established by law. Article 252. On the irremovability of judges. Judges are irremovable from their position, court or rank, during the term for which they were appointed. They may not be transferred or promoted without their prior express consent. […] Article 255. On immunity. No judge may be judicially indicted or questioned for opinions issued in the exercise of his functions. […] B.2. Judicial independence and the impeachment of judicial authorities 93. This Court has also heard cases concerning the dismissal of judicial authorities by means of impeachment proceedings96 in which it has examined the possible interference that this authorities.” Cf. African Commission Human and Peoples’ Rights, Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted as part of the Commission’s annual report at its second Summit and Meeting of Heads of State of the African Union, held in Maputo from July 4 to 12, 2003, Principles A.4.a. and l. See also, IBA Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence adopted by the International Bar Association in 1982; Conference of Supreme Court Chief Justices from the Asia Pacific Region, Beijing Statement of Principles of the Independence of the Judiciary in the LAWASIA Region, adopted in 1995 by the 6th Conference, Principle 3; Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Independence: Latimer House Guidelines for the Commonwealth, adopted on June 19, 1998, by representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association and the Commonwealth Legal Education Association, Guidelines II, VI and VII; Ibero-American Summit of Presidents of Supreme Courts, Statute of the Ibero-American Judge, adopted at the 6th Summit held in Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain, from May 23 to 25, 2001 articles 1, 2 and 14; Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary, adopted by the Study Group of the International Law Association on the Practice and Procedure of International Courts and Tribunals, in association with the Project on International Courts and Tribunals, in 2004, and the Declaration of Minimal Principles about Judiciaries and Judges’ Independence in Latin America, Campeche Declaration, adopted by the Latin American Federation of Judges in 2008. 95 Cf. Constitution of the Argentine Nation, articles 109 and 114(6); Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, article 178; Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, articles 95 and 103-B, paragraph 4, numeral I; Constitution of the Republic of Chile, article 73; Constitution of Colombia, articles 228 and 230; Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, article 154; Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, articles 168(1) and 431; Constitution of El Salvador, article 172; Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, article 203; Constitution of the Republic of Haiti, article 177; Constitution of the Republic of Honduras, articles 303 and 307; Constitution of the United Mexican States, article 94; Constitution of the Republic of Nicaragua, article 166; Constitution of the Republic of Panama, article 207; Constitution of Peru, articles 139(2) and 146; Constitution of the Dominican Republic, article 151; Constitution of the Republic of Suriname, article 10, and Constitution of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, article 118. 96 Several States that have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court have established in their Constitutions the possibility of indicting certain judicial authorities before the Legislature, establishing the dismissal of those authorities as an eventual consequence of the procedure. An overview of their constitutional systems results in the following classification: (1) States that establish the impeachment of judicial authorities before the Legislature, including the power of the latter to order the dismissal of those authorities: (i) Argentina Republic, articles 53, 59 and 60 of the Constitution; (ii) Republic of Honduras, article 234 of the Constitution; (iii) United Mexican States, articles 74, 76, 109 and 110 of the Constitution; (iv) Republic of Paraguay, articles 225 and 261 of the Constitution, and (v) Oriental Republic of Uruguay, articles 93, 102 and 103 of the Constitution; (2) States that, without referring to impeachment, establish the power of the Legislature to indict judicial authorities and decide on the indictment, establishing the power to dismiss such authorities as a result of the procedure: (i) Federative Republic of Brazil, article 52 of the Constitution; (ii) Plurinational State of Bolivia, articles 159 and 160 of the Constitution; (iii) Republic of Chile, articles 48 and 49 of the Constitution; (iv) Republic of Colombia, articles 174, 175 and 178; (v) Republic of Haiti, articles 184-1, 185, 186 and 189-1; (vi) Dominican Republic, articles 80 and 83 of the Constitution, and (vii) Republic of Peru, articles 99 and 100 of the Constitution; (3) States that, without regulating the impeachment or indictment procedures, establish the power of the Legislature to dismiss judicial authorities: (i) Republic of El Salvador, article 186 of the Constitution, and (ii) Republic of Nicaragua, article 138 of the Constitution, and (4) States that do not establish impeachment or the power of the Legislature to dismiss the Judiciary’s judges: (i) Republic of Costa Rica; (ii) Republic of Ecuador (the Constitution establishes the power of the Legislature to impeach members 25