on December 30, 2009, in other words, more than six years later, with the State providing no reasons for such a delay in a suit filed to protect fundamental rights. Moreover, on January 5, 2010, the Supreme Court declared those favorable judgments to be invalid, arguing that the justices involved did not observe legal order in issuing the decisions. 77. The IACHR notes that this last decision was taken three days after the Congress approved Resolution No. 1, in which it “forcefully repudiated” the sense of the aforementioned decisions and cautioned the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as other officials, that “accepting the validity of the judgment shall incur grounds for impeachment proceedings (…).” The Commission believes that this resolution, issued by the body that removed the alleged victims from office in the context and manner that has been described, constituted an external pressure that clearly led the Supreme Court to declare Judgments 951 and 952 to be invalid. 78. Against this backdrop, the IACHR finds that, based both on the legal framework and on the content of the decisions in question, the alleged victims did not have access to a higher authority or to effective judicial recourse for review of the decision to sanction them. 79. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Paraguayan State violated the right to appeal the judgment and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the American Convention in connection with the principle of judicial independence contained in Article 8(1) and Articles 1(1) and 2 therein, to the detriment of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea. V. CONCLUSIONS 80. The Commission concludes that the Paraguayan State is responsible for violating the principle of judicial independence, the right to a competent and impartial authority, the right to a reasoned decision, the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws, and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9, and 25(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. 81. The Commission also concludes that the Paraguayan State is not responsible for violating the right to a hearing and the right to a defense. VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 82. Based on the previous conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE PARAGUAYAN STATE: 1. Reinstate Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, should he so wish, in a position similar to the one he held in the judiciary, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and equivalent rank to which he would have been entitled if he had not been removed from office. If, for well-founded reasons, it is not possible to reinstate him, pay him alternative compensation. In the case of Carlos Fernández Gadea, the IACHR notes that due to his death, alternative compensation on his behalf is in order. 2. Provide full reparation for the violations of rights laid out in this report, including the material and non-material aspect. 3. Adjust domestic laws to ensure that sanction proceedings against justice operators are compatible with the standards on judicial independence established in this report and comply with all due process guarantees and the principle of legality. Specifically, the State should take the necessary measures to: i) ensure that sanction proceedings against judges are subject to legal controls and not political controls; ii) 19