issuing a disciplinary sanction against the judge because an investigation was underway by the Office for Control of Judges […] 86. The Court notes that the Investigation Report and the decisions of the OCMA and the CNM describe in detail the irregularities in which Mr. Cordero Bernal allegedly incurred by taking the decision by which he granted unconditional release to two defendants. According to the disciplinary organs, that decision was not in keeping with the supposed provisions established in the laws of Peru for granting this benefit because, in this way, a premature conclusion was brought to the criminal proceedings “against two defendants whose situation was clearly that they had violated Peruvian territorial space to move a large amount of foreign currency.”96 These irregularities reveal misconduct by the judge who had not conducted any procedure of a substantive nature during the proceedings; took the decision to grant unconditional release prior to the expiry of the corresponding legal time frame, and had not assessed all the evidence (supra para. 40). In the opinion of the CNM that conduct was serious and compromised the dignity of the office because it had no rational legal support, which was the minimum requirement for any jurisdictional decision. In this regard, the Court notes that the CNM assessed the gravity of the judge’s conduct – that is, he adopted an irrational decision – as well as its impact on the judicial function. Based on this assessment, it proceeded to adopt the decision of dismissal. 87. The foregoing arguments reveal the detailed examination made by the CNM of both Mr. Cordero Bernal’s arguments and the factual and legal presumptions and reasons why his conduct merited dismissal. The report prepared by the disciplinary authority revealed the reasons that led the CNM to determine that Mr. Cordero Bernal’s conduct was not only serious, but also compromised the dignity of the office, and devalued it in the opinion of the public, because it was irrational and had public impact. 88. That said, this Court takes into account that the decision by which Mr. Cordero Bernal granted unconditional release to two defendants, was not totally unsubstantiated. However, it plainly appears to have been precipitated, given that the case referred to the violation of Peruvian air space in a foreign aircraft that appeared to have been stolen, with almost US$400,000 on board, with two foreigners who provided extremely incoherent explanations. In addition, the aircraft had been forced to land by gunfire.97 Moreover, the judge was not under pressure due to a peremptory time limit; however, despite this, he took the decision to close the proceedings after a few days, in a court to which he had been appointed provisionally for a short time, in a case that had relatively uncommon characteristics and in which he had not ordered any measures. The Court understands that the sanction imposed in these circumstances was appropriate to the serious lack of prudence of the conduct, and consequently, did not violate the principle of proportionality. 89. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the CNM’s decision was duly substantiated and was not arbitrary and, consequently, neither the guarantees of due process nor the principle of legality established in the Convention were violated. 90. Furthermore, in light of the fact that in this case, a judge’s tenure was not arbitrarily affected, there was no violation of the right to judicial independence (Article 8(1) of the Convention), in relation to the right to have access to and permanence in public office, under general conditions of equality established in Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention). 96 National Council of the Judiciary, Decision No. 008-96-PCNM of August 14, 1996 (evidence file, folio 12). Cf. Answering brief of the State (merits file, folio 269), and Order of July 11, 1995, issued by the judge of the First Criminal Court of Huánuco (evidence file, folio 1155). 97 23