means that the National Congress was not competent to take the decision to terminate the judges, and this was not an appropriate decision in light of the principles of judicial independence to be defined below (infra paras. 188 to 199). 2.2. Possibility of being heard and exercising the right of defense, and the “ne bis in idem” principle 181. Even though, it has already declared that Congress did not have competence to remove the members of the Constitutional Tribunal from office (supra para. 180), in the circumstances of the instant case, the Court finds it necessary to examine some of the rights that, according to the Commission and the representatives, were violated both by the termination decision, and by the impeachment proceedings; in particular, the right to a hearing, and the right of to defend oneself, and the “ne bis in idem” principle. The Court has developed the right to a hearing protected by Article 8(1) of the Convention, understanding that, in general, it signifies the right of everyone to have access to the court or the organ of the State responsible for determining his or her rights and obligations. 204 Regarding the right to a hearing, established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Court reiterates that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention suppose that the victims must have ample possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, 205 so that they may submit their claims and present probative elements, and that these are analyzed completely and rigorously by the authorities before a decision is taken on the facts, responsibilities, sanctions, and reparations.206 182. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that the requirement that a person “be heard fairly, publicly and within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial court,” is equivalent to the right to a fair “trial” or “judicial proceedings.” Thus, the European Court has developed the criterion according to which a fair proceeding supposes that the organ responsible for administering justice makes “an appropriate examination of the allegations, arguments and evidence submitted by the parties, without prejudice to its assessment as to whether they are relevant for its decision.”207 In the case of Olujic v. Croatia concerning the processing of a disciplinary proceeding against the President of the Supreme Court of Croatia, the European Court of Human Rights emphasized the importance of the right to a fair hearing. 208 Meanwhile, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has also indicated that, in dismissal proceedings it is necessary to guarantee judges “at least all the due process requirements of the [European] Convention [on Human Rights], for instance that the case should be heard within a reasonable time and that they should have a right to answer any charges.”209 2.2.1. Rights to a hearing and of defense during the termination procedure on November 25, 2004 204 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 140. 205 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 81. 206 Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 146, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 120. 207 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, para. 121. 208 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, para. 121. 209 Cf. Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the independence, efficiency and role of judges, adopted on 13 October 1994. 53