- 67 incorporate the Council when hearing the appeals filed,” and (3) “the fact that it acted as a reviewing body of […] its superior in hierarchy.” As regards impartiality, they underscored that, in general, the Supreme Court of Justice had defended the lawfulness of the actions that led to the overthrow of the President at the time, so that “it was unthinkable that the said Court and its dependent organs could act impartially in the disciplinary proceedings of the [presumed] victims.”360 They added that the notes relating to the transfer of the charges “asserted – before the corresponding proceedings had been held – that, during the investigations […, the presumed victims] had been found responsible.” They indicated that, “of the 81 applications for amparo filed during the coup d’état, the Supreme Court decided two very rapidly, and these two related to the reinstatement of the head of the Armed Forces; meanwhile, the 79 appeals filed in relation to arbitrary detentions and a series of other abuses were not decided.” 206. The State affirmed that the Constitution attributed to the Supreme Court of Justice the authority to organize and direct the Judiciary, to appoint and to remove judges, and also justices of the appellate courts, upon the recommendation of the Judicial Service Council. It underlined that, following a ruling of the Supreme Court, “all judicial officials and employees go before the Judicial Service Council to file their appeals,” and this is what the presumed victims did in this case. It also indicated that, in the administrative procedures held by the Judicial Service Council, none of the justices intervened who had heard the dismissal proceedings, and the Council “was composed of outstanding officials who had entered the Judiciary by means of a competitive procedure and who had enjoyed a long and unblemished professional career, in order to ensure the principles of impartiality and objectivity.” B.2) Considerations of the Court 207. This Court has indicated that the guarantees contemplated in Article 8(1) of the Convention are also applicable in the event that a non-judicial authority adopts decisions that affect the determination of the rights of the individual,361 although such an authority cannot be required to comply with the guarantees inherent in a judicial organ, it must still provide those aimed at ensuring that its decisions are not arbitrary.362 The Court considers that the organs for the administration and regulation of the judicial service that intervened in the disciplinary proceedings of the presumed victims should have adopted their decisions fully respecting the guarantees of due process established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. The Court will now examine the different violations of due process alleged by the presumed victims, bearing in mind these considerations, as well as its conclusions in Chapter VII-1 of this judgment. 208. In this case, the four presumed victims were subjected to disciplinary proceedings under a procedure that was not established by law. In point of fact, Honduran law provided for two procedures: (1) the one established by the Constitution, according to which the Supreme Court appointed and removed judges following a recommendation by the Judicial Service Council,363 and (2) the one established in the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations, according to which the Personnel Management Directorate took the initial decision, or the decision of first instance, on the 360 The Court notes that the representatives also presented arguments regarding a presumed infringement of the judicial independence of the Supreme Court, due to the procedure used to appoint its justices. These facts are outside the factual framework submitted to the Court by the Commission. Therefore, the Court will not take them into account in its decision in this case. 361 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 71, and Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119. 362 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 119, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 208. 363 This power of the Supreme Court was also established in the Law on the Organization and Faculties of the Courts (supra para. 82).