by the First Specialized Public Law Court of Lima on June 2, 1997, which concluded that “the CNM acted in strict adherence to its functions and with all due respect for its legal authorities.”24 66. On June 20, 1997, Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez appealed the decision, alleging the violation of his right to freedom to work and remain in his position, arguing that the evidence in the CNM case file—to which he did not have access—had not been taken into consideration.25 67. On November 3, 1997, the Provisional Corporate Chamber Specialized in Public Law overturned the judgment being appealed and, amending it, ruled the action inadmissible.26 It concluded that pursuant to article 142 of the Political Constitution of the State, CNM resolutions on the evaluation and confirmation of judges were not reviewable by the judiciary and indicated that In this case, in response to the request from the Judiciary Oversight Office of the Judicial Branch, the Executive Council of this (sic) branch of government asks the National Council of the Judiciary to dismiss the appellant from the position of provisional judge of the Superior Court of Justice of Huánuco and the position of permanent judge of the Mixed Court of Huamalies, as well as cancel his appointment, leaving his ability to remain in office depending on the ratification of the National Council of the Judiciary, which it did not provide.27 68. On November 18, 1997, the alleged victim filed a constitutional appeal, indicating that: the omission or delay in signing the resolution granting leave to a judge (…) and appointing a substitute (…) cannot be considered a ‘serious infraction that, while not criminal, compromises the dignity of the office.’ At worst, I deserve a suspension, not dismissal, because article 211 of the O.L.J.B. is clear where it states that ‘magistrates are to be dismissed who (…) have committed a serious infractions that, while not criminal, compromises the dignity of the office as long as they have been suspended previously (…). But as indicated in the very resolution itself of the National Council of the Judiciary, the appellant was never previously sanctioned with suspension for other incidents; consequently, my dismissal is illegal and unconstitutional.28 69. On October 25, 1999, the Constitutional Tribunal denied the appeal, indicating: ...3. That the case file shows that the resolution under appeal was issued within the corresponding administrative process, in which the National Council of the Judiciary has proceeded in strict observance of the law and in which the appellant has been free to exercise his right to defense, in observance of the essential due process guidelines, with no violation of any of the appellant’s constitutional rights having been proven.29 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Rights to a fair trial, principle of legality, and judicial protection 1. General considerations on the applicable guarantees 70. The Commission recalls that both bodies of the inter-American system have indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not limited to criminal processes; rather, they also apply to processes of other natures.30 Specifically, as regards sanctioning processes, both bodies of the interAnnex 16. First Specialized Public Law Court of Lima. Resolution 5 of June 2, 1997. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. Annex 17. Appeal dated June 20, 1997. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. 26 Annex 18. Provisional Corporate Chamber Specialized in Public Law. Resolution of November 3, 1997. Annex to the brief of the petitioner, September 17, 2010. 27 Annex 19. Provisional Corporate Chamber Specialized in Public Law. Resolution of November 3, 1997. Annex to the brief of the petitioner, September 17, 2010. 28 Annex 20. Constitutional appeal, November 18, 1997. Annex to the initial petition of December 24, 1998. 29 Annex 21. Constitutional Tribunal, Judgment of October 25, 1999. Annex to the brief of the petitioner, September 17, 2010. 30 IACHR Report No. 65/11, Case 12,600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et al. (Justices of the Supreme Court), Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; Inter-American Court. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127;. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. [continúa…] 24 25 12