“minimum guarantees” established in Article 8(2) for the other non-criminal procedures and proceedings; a matter of extreme importance for understanding due process under the Convention, and over and above the specific case of impeachment. 85. As established in the Judgment, when the Court considers its own most representative precedents, it must be understood that judges can only be removed based on serious disciplinary offenses or incompetence, and in accordance with proceedings with due guarantees, or when their mandate has ended. Removal can never be the result of an arbitrary measure, and this must be examined in light of the existing domestic context and the circumstances of the specific case.122. C) The violation of different rights established in Articles 8 of the American Convention, as well as of Articles 23(1)(c) and 25 of the Pact of San José in this case 86. In the instant case, in order to reveal the different violations of due process in the impeachment proceedings filed against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal, it is sufficient to refer to the proven facts and to the domestic law in force and applicable in this respect, which is outlined in the Judgment. 87. At the time of the facts, articles 92 and 93 of the Organic Law on the Legislative Function indicated that the time frame for filing impeachment proceedings after the presentation of the respective motion was 5 to 10 days in cases of ordinary sessions of Congress and 30 days in the case of special sessions, and that this period could be extended for up to 60 days. However, when the impeachment proceeding started, these time frames had expired. Also, when Congress decided on the impeachments, the context of political crisis persisted during which the arbitrary decision to terminate the members of the Constitutional Tribunal was taken on November 25, 2004. 88. As the Judgment records, one of the serious irregularities was that, on December 1, 2004, four motions of censure had already been submitted to a vote and had not obtained sufficient affirmative votes. Despite this, on December 8, 2004, Congress decided to hold the votes again. Although, in one of the votes that was held for a second time, it was indicated that this was done owing to the presumed undue joinder of two of the motions of censure, when re-opening the said motions of censure to a vote no legal grounds were given to justify this new vote. 89. Regarding the vote held on December 8, 2004, and just to mention the most visible inconsistencies: (a) the session was called by the President of the Republic as a special session, even though Congress was not in recess; (b) the vote was held even though, during the session on December 1, a similar vote had been held and the motions had not obtained sufficient votes, based on which it had been declared that the “the motion is rejected”; (c) the session on December 1, 2004, had been closed without the members of Congress filing an appeal for reconsideration concerning the presumed inadmissibility of joindering the two motions of censure, and thus it was inadmissible to hold the vote again on December 8; (d) the vote on the removal of the judges was held in the session during which the termination of all the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice was declared, without having been announced previously on the agenda, and (e) the statements made by the members of Congress during that session made no mention of specific facts or evidence related to the accusations against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal. 122 Para. 200 of the Judgment. 24