justiciable when one of the parties invokes a violation of due process, that does not apply in the instant case because the appellant has not demonstrated a violation of Article 18 of the National Constitution.48 81. The Commission notes that Article 18 of the Constitution provides: "No inhabitant of the Nation may be punished without previous trial based on a law enacted before the act that gives rise to the process, nor tried by special committees, nor removed from the judges appointed by law before the act for which he is tried. Nobody may be compelled to testify against himself, or be arrested except by virtue of a written warrant issued by a competent authority. The defense by trial of persons and rights may not be violated.”49 82. On February 27, 2001, the alleged victim presented himself at the Anticorruption Office of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights to denounce that he had been denied his constitutional rights in the dismissal proceedings against him. He also alleged a situation of corruption and connivance between the Impeachment Tribunal and the Departmental Bar Association.50 83. On February 28, 2001, the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights decided "to set aside the instant proceedings because they do not fall within the scope and objectives of this Anticorruption Office's investigations.”51 5. Remedies related to the setting of honoraria 84. On October 22, 2001, the Impeachment Jury set the honoraria of the Jury’s associate judges at 7,000 pesos each. It also set the honoraria for the counsels for the plaintiff and the accused at 3,500 pesos.52 85. On November 5, 2001, the alleged victim lodged an appeal against the above decision, arguing that the amounts set were "arbitrary, confiscatory, and removed from the circumstances of the case" since the total sum set in favor of the associate judges and counsels plus the contributions prescribed by law exceeded US$50,000, an amount impossible for him to pay.”53 86. The alleged victim also invoked another series of remedies to challenge the proceedings in which the honoraria of the professionals acting both for and against him were set. However, all were declared unfounded. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. General considerations on applicable guarantees and the principle of judicial independence 48 Annex 10. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation denying the motion for reconsideration, August 28, 2001. Annex 1 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 49 Law No. 24.430, Constitution of the Argentine Nation. Annex 11. Brief presented to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, February 27, 2001. Annex 19 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 50 51 Annex 11. Decision of the Anticorruption Office of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, February 28, 2001. Annex 19 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 52 Annex 12. Decision of the Jury of Impeachment of Judges and Public Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires, October 22, 2001. Annex 16 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002. 53 Annex 13. Appeal filed by the alleged victim on November 5, 2001. Annex 17 to the initial petition of March 4, 2002.