61. The petitioner, for his part, argues that he did not have access to a simple and prompt recourse for protection of his right or to due process that would guarantee the independence and impartiality of the bodies that took up the case against him, all in violation of articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention. He also alleges an unwarranted delay in rendering a decision on the constitutionality challenges he brought, inasmuch as the delay exceeded the time period allowed under Paraguayan law. The petitioner alleges further that the removal of the justices from the Supreme Court violated the independence of the judicial branch of government and was part of a policy to harass the justices, constituting violations of articles 23(1)(c) and 11 of the Convention, which recognize the right to participate in government and the right to have one’s honor respected and dignity recognized. He also alleges violation of Article 24 of the Convention, which guarantees equal protection of the law, inasmuch as only certain justices were allegedly tried when the court decisions for which they were impeached were taken by all nine justices. 62. The jurisprudence of the inter-American system of human rights indicates that the rights protected in Article 8 of the American Convention may be applied not only to criminal trials, but also to administrative or other kinds of proceedings. Thus, taking into consideration the relationship between judicial guarantees and the independence of the judicial power as one of the essential elements of the rule of law, the lack of application of certain guaranties to the process undertaken to remove the petitioner of his position as Supreme Court Justice could constitute a violation of article 8 of the Convention. Furthermore, the lack of a ruling on the constitutionality challenges filed by the petitioner may tend to establish a violation of Article 25 of the Convention, regarding the availability of a remedy to challenge the legality of a proceeding to remove the Justice from his post. 63. Based on the previous considerations, the IACHR concludes that the reported facts may constitute violations of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. At the same time, the Commission does not find that the petitioner has presented evidence that would tend to establish a violation of his right to privacy, his political rights or his right to equal protection of the law, as established, respectively, in Articles 11, 23(1)(c) and 24 of the Convention. 64. In light of the foregoing facts, the IACHR does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” and finds that, prima facie, the petitioner has met all the requirements of Articles 47(b) and 47(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights. V. CONCLUSIONS 65. The Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of this case and that the petition is admissible based on articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 66. Based on the arguments of fact and of law herein stated, and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: