Judiciary, used a norm that permitted a discretionality that was incompatible with the level of predictability that a norm should have that is aimed at providing a disciplinary sanction for the conduct of a judge, in violation of the principle of legality and judicial independence. 7. In addition, given that the Court has indicated that when the tenure of judges has been affected arbitrarily, the right of access to and permanence, under general conditions of equality, in public office is also violated,4 I also consider that it should have declared the violation of Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention. This is because access under conditions of equality to public office is an insufficient guarantee if it is not accompanied by the effective protection of permanence in that office.5 In this regard, the Human Rights Committee has also interpreted that this guarantee of protection includes both access to and permanence in conditions of equality and non-discrimination in relation to suspension and dismissal proceedings.6 I also consider that if the Court had established that the principle of legality and the right to judicial independence had been violated in this case, it would not have been necessary to analyze the alleged violation of the right to substantiate decisions contained in Article 8 of the American Convention. 8. Lastly, regarding the alleged violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention, I agree with the majority that the analysis of the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives reveals that the dispute in this case is related to the effectiveness of the application for amparo against the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary. 7 However, since the Peruvian Constitution established that the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary could not be contested and the judges interpreted that the only remedy against them was the application for amparo based on violations of due process,8 I consider that, even though there was a remedy, this was not adequate to contest violations of other fundamental rights; therefore, to this extent, the remedy was not effective. For this reason, I consider that the violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention should have been declared. 9. Based on the above, the undersigned is unable to agree with the criteria adopted in the judgment to decide that the State was not responsible for violation of rights recognized in the American Convention and alleged by the Commission and the representatives. L. Patricio Pazmiño Freire Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 155, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 192. 4 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 138, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2019. Series C No. 373, para. 93. 5 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Case of Pastukhov v. Belarus (Communication 814/1998), UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/814/1998, August 5, 2003, paras. 7.3 and 9, and Case of Adrien Mundyo Busyo et al. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (Communication 933/2000), UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/933/2000, July 31, 2003, para. 5.2. See also: Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 135. 6 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 102. 7 8 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits, supra. 2