case the appellant had not demonstrated a violation of Article 18 of the National Constitution, which is transcribed in the section on proven facts. 129. The Commission notes that in none of the remedies invoked did the courts make any substantive analysis as to the existence or otherwise of violations of due process in the punitive proceeding. The discussion, with contradictory findings, centered on the possibility or not of lodging an appeal, with it initially being indicated that the decisions of Impeachment Juries are not subject to review, then that the appeal was not properly founded, and finally that the decisions were subject to appeal but not in this case where the violations of due process had not been attested. The Commission underscores that the last decision rejected the admissibility of an appeal on the grounds that no violation of due process had been proven, when that precisely was the substantive issue that the appeal sought to have reviewed. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Argentine State violated Eduardo Rico's right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, taken in conjunctions with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. VI. CONCLUSIONS 130. The Inter-American Commission concludes that the Argentine State is responsible for the violation of the right to reasoned decisions, the principle of legality, the right to participate in government, and the right to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(h), 9, 23, and 25(1) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Rico. 131. The Commission also concludes that the State is not responsible for violation of the right to a hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, or for violation of the right of defense. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 132. Based on the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THAT THE ARGENTINE STATE: 1. Reinstate Eduardo Rico, if he so wishes, in a position similar to the one he held, with the same pay, welfare benefits and rank as he would enjoy at present had he not been dismissed, for the length of time that remained under his term of office. If for justified reasons his reinstatement is not possible, pay him an alternative indemnity. 2. Provide reparation for the consequences of the violations established in this report, including both material and nonpecuniary damages 3. Adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that punitive proceedings against judges in Argentina meet the standards described in this report. In particular, the State should effect the necessary legislative changes to: (i) ensure that punitive proceedings against judges are subject to legal, not political, control; (ii) enact rules on applicable penalties so that the punishment of dismissal and ineligibility are not automatically imposed but, rather, that there be a range of applicable penalties proportionate to the fault committed; (iii) allow judges recourse to appeal in punitive proceedings against them so that they can have the penalty imposed reviewed, independently of the possibility of judicial review for violations of due process; and (iv) ensure that the judicial remedy for possible violations of due process in proceedings of this type is genuinely accessible and simple, as well as allowing a decision on the merits without excessive formalities. Furthermore, the State should adopt such administrative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that officials charged with punitive proceedings against judges provide reasoned decisions in a manner compatible with the American Convention, as analyzed in this report.