54. The Commission notes that the provisions contained in Article 205, paragraphs 20 and 21, of the Constitution, which determine that the National Congress has the power to “approve or disapprove the administrative conduct…of the judicial branch” and to “appoint special committees to investigate matters of national interest,” do not comply with the terms established for regular disciplinary proceedings, previously established by law, pursued against justices of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the reference to “administrative conduct” does not imply that the National Congress has competence to judge justices based on their decisions. Consequently, these cannot serve as the justification or basis for the summary decisions to remove justices who were properly appointed to their positions. 55. In this regard, the Commission considers that the legal framework in existence at that time lacked provisions that would govern the jurisdiction of an authority and the sanctions proceedings of a political nature to which the four justices of the Constitutional Chamber were subjected. The text of the Constitution granted the Honduran Congress competence to elect Supreme Court justices and to approve or disapprove of their administrative conduct but did not grant the Congress competence to remove them from office or to establish itself as the deciding body in an impeachment proceeding against them. In other words, as the Congress was not a competent authority to decide on the alleged victims’ dismissal, in effect it created an ad hoc mechanism used to remove them from office. 56. In addition, the Commission takes into account that only in January 2013 did the Honduran Congress amend Article 234 of the Constitution to include Supreme Court justices on the list of authorities who could be investigated and prosecuted through an impeachment proceeding carried out by the Congress. In this regard, the Special Impeachment Law was approved on April 5, 2013, through Decree No. 51-2013, and published in Official Gazette No. 33093 of April 8, 2013. That legal provision, which was adopted subsequent to the events that are the subject of this petition, establishes an impeachment proceeding against high-level State authorities and regulates its various procedural stages. 57. It having been determined that the National Congress was not the competent body in this case and that there was no previously established procedure in place, the Commission concludes that all the actions that flowed from the Congress in the framework of the ad hoc procedure that was adopted in the case violated Article 8 of the American Convention, rendering it unnecessary to analyze the other guarantees of due process. 57 Nevertheless, in order that the State may adopt appropriate measures to avoid a recurrence of events such as those that occurred in the case at hand, the Commission considers it pertinent to examine the guarantees that apply to the disciplinary procedure against José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma. 3. Principle of legality 58 58. The principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws) recognized in Article 9 of the Convention governs the actions of State bodies when they exercise their power to punish. 59 As indicated above, this principle is applicable to disciplinary proceedings, which are “an expression of the punitive powers of the State” as they entail impairment or alteration of human rights as a consequence of wrongful conduct. 60 59. The Commission notes that States have the authority to design and organize disciplinary proceedings; however, these must be implemented according to pre-established procedures that indicate the authorities and IACHR, Report No. 23/17, Case 12.311, Merits, Eduardo Benjamín Colindres, El Salvador, March 18, 2017, par. 56; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No, 268, par. 223, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 241. 58 Article 9 of the Convention establishes: “No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.” 59 IACHR, Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/Doc.49/15, December 31, 2015, par. 253. 60 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 257; Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 3, 2016, Series C No. 311, para. 89; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 2, 2001, Series C No. 72, paras. 106 and108. 57 13