established the regulations for the applicable procedure beforehand, as well as the alleged violation of the rights to be heard and of defense, and the right to a duly reasoned decision and the principle of legality. 134. The Court also notes that, despite the explicit prohibition contained in article 2 of Senate Resolution No. 122 that its decisions could “not be subject to any type of appeal,” Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea filed several actions of unconstitutionality to claim judicial protection of their rights. Consequently, the presumed victims were able to argue their claims for protection in relation to the impeachment proceedings and the decision to remove them from office by filing judicial actions that, ultimately, were heard and decided by the competent authority. Therefore, the Court finds it unnecessary to examine the arguments concerning Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, Rather, in light of what happened in this specific case, the respective analysis must be made with regard to the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection (infra paras. 145 and ff.). B.3.3. Alleged violation of the protection of honor and dignity, and equality before the law 135. The Court recalls that the presumed victims’ representatives are authorized to cite rights other than those indicated by the Commission because the presumed victims are entitled to all the rights established in the American Convention. Therefore, denying them this authority would mean an undue restriction of their condition as subjects of international human rights law. However, case law has requires that such arguments be based on the factual framework established in the Merits Report.147 136. With regard to the allegation of the violation of the right to protection of honor and dignity, the representatives argued that the impeachment proceedings “created a negative image [of the presumed victims], especially in judicial and social circles,” and “accusations [against them were even] published in all the media.” These arguments correspond to facts that were not included in the Commission’s Merits Report and, consequently, they do not form part of the dispute that this Court is called on to decide because to do so would involve a violation of the procedural guarantees of the parties in the context of these proceedings. Since the allusion to opinions expressed outside the context of the impeachment proceedings exceeds the factual framework of this case, it is not in order to make the requested analysis. 137. The representatives also indicated that the alleged violation stemmed from the suffering caused to the presumed victims, at both a personal and a family level, by the impeachment proceedings and the investigation undertaken after the complaints against them had been forwarded to the criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court notes that the arguments relate to the eventual harm allegedly caused to the presumed victims, a matter that forms part of the analysis of reparations. It should be added that the representatives reiterated these arguments precisely with regard to their claims for reparation. Consequently, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to make the requested analysis in relation to the violation of the right to protection of honor and dignity. 138. In the case of the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention, which establishes the right to equality before the law, the representatives argued that the presumed victims had been discriminated against “for political reasons.” They argued that this violation had occurred because the impeachment proceedings and the subsequent dismissal were based on judicial decisions that had also been signed by other justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, who Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 26, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 32. 147 36