the operation of the judicial system from appearing distorted. The institution of recusal, on one hand, works as a guarantee for the parties to the proceedings, and on the other hand, it aims to provide credibility to the role performed by the jurisdiction. A challenge should not necessarily be seen as putting the moral rectitude of the challenged official on trial, but rather as a tool to build trust for those who turn to the State seeking action by bodies that should be and should appear to be impartial.37 58. In the case at hand, the Commission underscores that Resolution 122, which laid out the rules for the impeachment proceedings against the alleged victims, established that “no preliminary issues, recusals, matters of prior and special pronouncement, or confession evidence shall be admitted.” This prevented the alleged victims from challenging the impartiality of the disciplinary authority, a guarantee that is particularly significant in the context described, in which the alleged victims argued that the impeachment had a discriminatory basis and that, as will be analyzed in the following sections, the disciplinary authority did not provide grounds for its decisions and these decisions could not be appealed. 59. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Paraguayan State violated the right to a hearing by an impartial authority established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 therein, to the detriment of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea. 4. The right to a hearing and the right of defense 60. The right to be a hearing (Article 8(1) of the Convention) encompasses the right of every person to have access to the court or public body responsible for determining his or her rights and obligations.38 The right of defense, for its part, includes the obligation to prior notification in detail of the charges being brought against the accused (Article 8(2)(b) of the Convention), as well as the granting of adequate time and means for the preparation of the person’s defense (Article 8(2)(c) of the Convention). Both rights—to a hearing and to a defense—are related to each other, as “to provide a hearing to a person under investigation implies permitting him to defend himself adequately.”39 The right to a hearing does not necessarily imply that this must be exercised orally, and it may be substantiated in writing.40 The authority in charge of the sanction proceeding must follow the procedures established for this purpose and allow the exercise of the right of defense.41 This right is impaired, for example, when the time period allowed to exercise the right of defense is inadequate considering the need to examine the case and the evidence.42 61. In the instant case, the alleged victims argued that their right of defense was violated considering that they had two business days to prepare their defense and three hours to present it. For its part, the State indicated that although the Rules of Procedure granted only 48 hours for the articles of impeachment to be conveyed to them, the Impeachment Committee sent them the charges on November 12, 2003, giving the alleged victims 18 days between the notification and the presentation of their defense. The State also noted that even though the Rules of Procedures established a period of three hours for the accused to defend themselves against the charges, the Senate did not limit the time for exercising their defense. The State added I/A Court. H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 63. 38 I/A Court. H.R., 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. 39 Along these lines, the Commission has indicated: “To provide a hearing to a person under investigation implies permitting him to defend himself adequately, with the assistance of an attorney, in knowledge of all the evidence mounted against him; to provide him with a hearing is to permit him to be present at the examination of any witnesses that testify against him, to permit him to challenge their testimony, and to cross-examine them in order to discredit their incriminating statements as contradictory or false; to provide an accused with a hearing is to give him the opportunity to deny and to detract from the documents sought to be used against him.” IACHR, Report No. 50/00 in Case 11.298, Reinaldo Figueredo Planchart v. Venezuela, para.112. 40 I/A Court. H.R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 75. 41 I/A Court. H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 73 and 74. IACHR, Report No. 30/97. Case 10.087 (Merits). Gustavo Carranza, Argentina, September 30, 1997, para. 68. 42 I/A Court. H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 81-83. 37 15