I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. On October 3, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of “Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea” against the Republic of Paraguay (hereinafter also “the Paraguayan State,” “the State” or “Paraguay”). According to the Commission, the case relates to a series of violations that occurred in the context of the impeachment proceedings that culminated in the dismissal of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea from their functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay in 2003. The Commission considered that the State had violated the right to a competent authority and a previously established procedure because, following the charges brought by the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate issued Resolution No. 122 in which it established “the procedure for the impeachment proceedings,” and those rules had “a substantial impact” on the presumed victims’ exercise of their right of defense, as well as on other aspects related the guarantees of due process. The Commission also alleged that the State had violated the right to an impartial authority because the said rules did not allow members of the Senate to be recused. It also alleged the violation of the right to duly reasoned decisions and to the principle of legality, in relation to the principle of judicial independence, because the decision ordering the dismissal of the justices did not establish the reasons and the cause cited, relating to the “improper performance of their functions,” was extremely vague and gave a wide margin of discretion to the legislative authority. The Commission also concluded that the State had violated the right to appeal the decision and the right to judicial protection because the said procedural rules indicated that the decisions issued by the Senate were not subject to any type of appeal. It added that the presumed victims had filed actions of unconstitutionality that were decided in their favor approximately six years later. However, the National Congress had issued a resolution in which it “vigorously repudiated” the import of the rulings, and this had constituted “external pressure” on the Supreme Court of Justice to declare the said judgments null and void. 2. Procedure before the Commission. The procedure before the Commission was as follows: a) Petitions. On November 13, 2003, and June 7, 2004, respectively, Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea (hereinafter also “the presumed victims”), lodged their initial petitions before the Commission. b) Admissibility Reports. On March 19, 2009, the Commission adopted Admissibility Reports Nos. 18/091 and 47/09,2 which were notified on April 20 that year, together with the decision to joinder the two petitions because they raised similar issues.3 c) Merits Report. On February 12, 2019, the Commission adopted Merits Report No. 17/19 (hereinafter “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 17/19”), in which it reached a series of conclusions4 and made several recommendations to the State. IACHR. Report No. 18/09. Petition 525-04. Admissibility. Carlos Fernández Gadea. Paraguay. March 19, 2009. IACHR. Report No. 47/09. Petition 963-03. Admissibility. Bonifacio Ríos Avalos. Paraguay. March 19, 2009. 3 In both reports the Commission declared the petitions admissible with regard to the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, and declared that they were inadmissible with regard to the rights ensured in Articles 11, 23(1)(c) and 24. 4 The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the principle of judicial independence, the right to a competent and impartial authority, the right to a well-reasoned decision, the principle of legality, the right to appeal a decision, and the right to judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this international instrument to the detriment of Bonifacio Ríos Avalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea. The Commission also concluded that the State was 1 2 4