Congress having jurisdiction to do so, that is in the event of an impeachment that did not take place. This affected the principle of judicial independence, the principle of legality and the right to a competent authority through previously established procedures. 56. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the State violated Articles 8.1 and 9 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón. 3. Right to Prior Notification in Detail of the Charges and to Adequate Time and Means for a Defense 57. The Commission recalls that the right to a defense implies that a person subject to judicial proceedings, including of an administrative nature, can defend their interests or rights effectively and in "conditions of equality of arms (...) by being fully informed of the accusations that are made against him"35. Specifically, regarding the disciplinary procedures of judges, the Inter-American Court, following the provisions of the Basic Principles, has indicated that the authority in charge of the proceedings for the imposition of sanctions must conduct it in accordance with the law and ensure the exercise of the right to a defense. 36 58. The IACHR observes that in this case there is no evidence that the State has notified the alleged victim of the initiation of a proceeding that could result in his removal, nor that he has had any possibility of being heard and of presenting a defense prior to his removal from the post of member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, through Resolution 25-160 of the National Congress. 59. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the State violated Articles 8.2 b) and 8.2 c) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón. 4. The Right to Appeal the Case37 and Judicial Protection38 60. The IACHR recalls that the right to appeal the judgment is part of due process in a proceeding involving the imposition of sanctions 39 and it is a fundamental guarantee whose purpose is to prevent the consolidation of a situation of injustice. 40 Regarding the scope of the right to appeal, both the IACHR and the Court have indicated that this implies an examination, both in fact and in law of the appealed decision, by a judge or by a different tribunal of superior hierarchy. 41 This must take place before the judgment acquires the status of res judicata; it must be resolved within a reasonable time; and it must be timely and effective, that is, it must respond to the purpose for which it was conceived. In addition, it must be accessible, without requiring formalities that render the right illusory. 42 61. Finally, the IACHR recalls that the State has a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons claiming to be victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law. In order for an effective remedy to exist, it is not enough that I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No.18. para. 117. 36 IACHR, Report No. 103/13, Case 12.816, Merits Report, Adan Guillermo López Lone et. al., Honduras, para.143. 37 Article 8.2 establishes the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court” 38 Article 25.1 provides that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 39 IACHR, Report on the Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 235; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218. Para. 179. 40IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et. al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para.186. 41IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et. al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para.186. 42IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12.820, Manfred Amrhein et. al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para.186 et seq.. 35 11