guarantee if it were not accompanied by the effective protection of the continuance in what is accessed, which is related to observance of the principle of tenure for judges and the prohibition of their arbitrary dismissal. 89 91. In the instant case, as has been indicated, the alleged victims’ separation was carried out arbitrarily, without observing due process guarantees, which in addition to having a concrete impact on the individual victims, must be understood in relation to the interference with the principle of judicial independence. In this regard, the Commission notes that in the context of the events of this case, prior to the justices’ dismissal the Constitutional Chamber had declared unconstitutional at least three other laws approved by the government in office, and that on those occasions, the Honduran President severely criticized these judicial decisions. 92. The documents attached to the case file show that the then-President of the Republic, Porfirio Lobo, gave public statements related the decision by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court to declare the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption unconstitutional. He mentioned the names of the four alleged victims to the media, and the motion to set up a Special Committee to investigate the “administrative conduct of the justices” was put forward by a deputy from the ruling party. According to what has already been described, the aforementioned former President said that he was “totally in agreement” with the alleged victims’ dismissal and indicated that “in his opinion, the members of the Constitutional Chamber do not deserve the trust of the Honduran people for opposing the police purge.” Furthermore, the Commission considers it extremely serious that during the debate that ended with the justices’ dismissal, military and police forces surrounded the parliamentary building. There is no doubt that this factor clearly put symbolic and material pressure on a democratically elected branch of government. Added to that situation is the statement by the then-President of the Congress, who told a media outlet that “he had discussed the issue of the justices’ removal with President Lobo and that they had come to a consensus that this would be best for the country, and that agreement had been reached with the President of the Supreme Court regarding the appointment of the new justices.” 93. Consequently, the Commission observes that there was a causal relationship between the statements made by the President of the Republic regarding rulings against the government’s interests and the special investigation that was carried out by the Honduran Congress and that resulted in the victims’ dismissal. In the Commission’s view, the facts laid out show that the executive and legislative branches exerted clear pressure against the Constitutional Chamber, which was serious and ran contrary to the principle of judicial independence enshrined in the American Convention. 94. In this regard, the Commission observes that the arbitrary decision of the Congress was not adopted because of any possible administrative actions or infractions that led to some type of responsibility on the part of the dismissed judges; rather, it was in pursuit of a completely different purpose and had to do with an abuse of power. This had a highly negative impact on the institutional aspect of judicial independence, as it constituted an attack on the institution, altered the democratic order and the rule of law, and meant that at that moment there was no real separation of powers. 95. In view of what has been laid out, the Commission concludes that in the case at hand it has been established that José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma were removed from office in a proceeding in which there were violations both to due process of law as well as to the principle of legality under the terms explained throughout this report on the merits. In addition, it was established that the dismissal proceeding carried out by the Congress was implemented arbitrarily, in breach of the principle of judicial independence. Under these circumstances, and in keeping with the criterion mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the Commission considers that the State also violated the right to have access to and remain in public office, under general conditions of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof,90 to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma. I/A Court H.R., Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 4, 2019, Series C No. 373, paras. 93 and 94. 90 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 23, 2013, Series C No. 266, par. 180; IACHR, Report No. 72/17, Case 13.019, Report on Merits, Eduardo Rico, [continúa…] 89 19