judge presumes that there is an appropriate appointment process, a fixed term in the position and a guarantee against external pressures. […] 77. Regarding the exercise of the authority of Congress to conduct impeachment proceedings, which engages the responsibility of a public official, the Court believes that it should be recalled that any person subject to a proceeding of any nature before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that this organ is competent, independent and impartial and that it acts in accordance with the procedure established by law for hearing and deciding the case submitted to it. 167. Similarly, in the case of Baena Ricardo v. Panama, the Court established that:193 125. The Court observes that the series of minimum guarantees established in paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Convention is applied to the jurisdictions referred to in paragraph 1 of this article, namely, the determination of rights and obligations of “a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” This reveals the broad scope of due process; the individual has the right to due process as understood in the terms of Article 8(1) and 8(2) in both criminal matters and in all of these other jurisdictions. 126. In any matter, including labor and administrative matters, the discretionality of the administration has limits that may not be passed, one such limit being respect for human rights. It is important that the administration’s conduct be regulated and it may not invoke public order to reduce the guarantees of the population discretionally. For instance, the administration may not dictate punitive administrative decisions without granting the individuals sanctioned the guarantee of due process. 127. It is a human right to obtain all the guarantees that make it possible to arrive at fair decisions, and the administration is not exempt from comply with this obligation. The minimum guarantees must be observed in administrative proceedings and in any other proceeding whose decision may affect the rights of the individual. […] 129. Justice, provided through due process of law, as a real, juridically protected right, must be ensured in any disciplinary proceeding, and States cannot escape this obligation based on the argument that the due guarantees of Article 8 of the American Convention do not apply in the case of sanctions that are disciplinary rather than criminal. Allowing States to make this interpretation would be equivalent to leaving the application of the right of every individual to due process up to their free will. 168. In the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the judges were penalized by impeachment proceedings held by Congress based on actions that had supposedly harmed due process when ruling on a case, when, among other aspects, a draft judgment had been leaked to the press, a vote had been held that was classified as irregular, and the three judges who were prosecuted had taken a decision without consulting the other members of that organ.194 The Court observed that several members of Congress who had sent a letter to the Constitutional Court asking it to rule on whether or not a law on presidential reelection was constitutional, subsequently took part in different committees and subcommittees appointed in the removal process and, contrary to the congressional rules of procedure, some members of the Permanent Commission participated in the vote of the 193 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 125 to 127 and 129. 194 In that case it was proved that: “on May 5, 1997, the congressional Investigation Committee submitted constitutional charges against Justices Aguirre Roca, Rey Terry and Revoredo Marsano to the congressional Permanent Commission, accusing them of violating the Constitution by submitting a working paper as “if it was a judgment that had already been discussed and adopted by the full Constitutional Court” and also for issuing a ruling on the petition for clarification filed by the Lima Bar Association on behalf of the Constitutional Court. Lastly, it indicated that Justice Nugent had acted unlawfully by “justifying the constitutional violation” and not convening the full Constitutional Court to decide the said petition for clarification.” Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 56.19. 49