4. Right of defense 67 and right to duly substantiated decisions 68 66. The Inter-American Court has established that under Article 8 of the Convention, the right of defense is part of due process and that for that right to be observed, a defendant must be able to exercise his rights and defend his interests effectively and in full procedural equality with other defendants 69 and must be fully informed of the charges against him. 70 67. In the case of disciplinary proceedings against justice operators, various instruments of international law establish their right to be heard in a disciplinary proceeding and to exercise their right of defense. In that regard, the Inter-American Court has indicated, in keeping with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, that the authority in charge of the disciplinary proceeding must behave in accordance with the procedure established for the purpose and allow the justice operator to exercise his or her right of defense. 71 Likewise, the Venice Commission has recognized that prosecutors are entitled to be heard in adversarial proceedings, 72 and the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, which also apply to public defenders, provide the right to a fair hearing and the right to be assisted by a lawyer of their choice. 73 68. In the Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the Inter-American Court indicated that the period of time granted for exercising the right of defense, considering the need to examine the case and review the evidence, as well as the possibility of cross-examining the witnesses whose testimony formed the basis of the charge, constituted elements to be analyzed in considering whether it was possible for the dismissed justices to defend themselves. 74 69. The Inter-American Commission observes that in the instant case, the four justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court did not have the opportunity to be heard and to prepare an adequate defense. The Commission notes that neither the Special Committee nor the National Congress summoned the alleged victims involved to exercise their right of defense, since among other aspects of the act of separation, it was held through a summary proceeding, as established above. 70. Specifically, the Commission notes that the justices were not even legally notified beforehand of some sort of charge or the opening of a disciplinary proceeding; nor were they summoned to testify before the Special Committee of Deputies or before the National Congress that determined their removal from office. In addition, the Commission observes that the alleged victims did not have the opportunity to dispute the arguments that formed the basis for their dismissal, or to present evidence to be analyzed by the relevant authorities. 71. Moreover, the Commission considers that the speed by which the Congress determined the maximum penalty against the four justices of the Constitutional Chamber violated their right of defense. The evidence shows that on December 10, 2012, the Congress created a Special Committee to investigate the alleged victims’ 67 Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes, in its pertinent sections: “Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: …b. prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel….” 68 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 69 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003, Series A No. 18, par. 121. 70 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards Strengthening Access to Justice and the Rule of Law in the Americas, December 5, 2013, par. 219. 71 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. 73-74. 72 European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on European Standards as regards the Independence of the Judicial System: Part II – The Prosecution Service. Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th plenary session (Venice, December 17-18, 2010), Strasbourg, January 3, 2011, par. 52. 73 United Nations, Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Defenders, Havana, August 27 to September 7, 1990, Principle 27. 74 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. 15