unsubstantiated.”26 Nevertheless, the Court concluded 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,”27 and that “[t]he report prepared by the disciplinary authority reveals 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.”28 31. On this point, the considerations in the case of López Lone et al. should be recalled regarding the fact that, in the presence of indeterminate disciplinary offenses and in the absence of norms that develop objective criteria, the statement of reasons – which, from my perspective is reflected in the clear and detailed arguments and reasonings – has special relevance in relation to the obligation of the disciplinary body to indicate how the conduct matches or is circumscribed by the indeterminate elements established in the open disciplinary offense (which, in this case, were the three established in article 31.2 of the LOC, supra para. 24); because, in addition to the fact that these indeterminate elements should have been developed previously by law or interpretation, that normative or interpretive development should be present in the disciplinary body’s statement of reasons. 32. According to the majority opinion, “the Investigation Report and the decisions of the OCMA (Office for Control of Judges) and the CNM describe in detail the irregularities in which Mr. Cordero Bernal allegedly incurred,”29 and, therefore, “the CNM’s decision was duly substantiated and was not arbitrary.”30 However, I must underline that, although the Investigation Report and the decisions of the OCMA and the CNM describe the acts and omissions of Mr. Cordero Bernal when adopting his decision and classify them “as serious,” it should not be overlooked that the three decisions merely give an account of the facts that originated Judge Cordero Bernal’s decision without explaining sufficiently the relationship between the acts and the norm indicated (in particular the decision of the National Council of the Judiciary in its tenth consideration).31 I therefore transcribe some of the pertinent parts of the Investigation Report and of the two decisions in the disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Cordero Bernal. 33. First, the Investigation Report of July 21, 1995, considers: I) […] it is validly concluded that, by granting unconditional release to the drug-traffickers, Hector Cordero Bernal […] has not only seriously compromised the respectability of the Judiciary, but also the corresponding legal time frame, and not assessing] all the evidence,” this revealed the judge’s misconduct because they were considered irregularities, and (v) “[i]n 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.” Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, paras. 84, 85 and 86. Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 88. 26 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 86. 27 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 87. 28 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 86. 29 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 89. 30 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 265 31 8