57. On June 22, 2007, the First Specialized Civil Room declared the motion of appeal inadmissible, stating the appeal petition’s failure to refer the case within the stipulated period.52 58. The alleged victim filed for a constitutional grievances remedy before the Constitutional Court, against the previous decision.53 On December 20, 2007, the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional grievances remedy inadmissible, indicating the action’s failure to refer the case within the stipulated period, and that the continuous nature of the affectation was not confirmed.54 IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. General considerations on applicable safeguards in punitive and determination of rights proceedings 59. The Commission recalls that both bodies of the Inter-American system have indicated that the safeguards established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not restricted to criminal proceedings but they apply to proceedings of another nature.55 Particularly, regarding punitive processes, both system bodies have indicated that the safeguards established in Article 8.2 of the American Convention similarly apply.56 The proceedings including the said right or interests are applicable to the “fair trial,” established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, including the right to a sufficient motivation.57 Likewise, the European Court has indicated that due process safeguards must be respected and granted in the framework of administrative procedures that conclude in the dismissal of a civil servant.58 60. Pursuant to the foregoing, regarding the determination of the remedies the State had the obligation to grant in a concrete case, it is necessary to refer to the nature of the proceeding in question. 61. In the present case, the IACHR recalls that the alleged victims were dismissed from their roles as judges and prosecutors, as a consequence of the assessment and ratification proceeding, regulated in Article 154, paragraph 2 of the Political Constitution of Peru of 1993, which was carried out after the said magistrates had completed seven years in office. 62. The assessment and ratification proceeding in the Peruvian legislation had the aim of evaluating the conduct and aptitude incumbent on the role of judges and prosecutors. Considering the proceeding’s nature and effects, and taking into account the disciplinary monitoring, which essentially has the aim of assessing justice operators’ conduct, aptitude incumbent on the role, and performance, the Commission estimates that the proceedings were absolutely punitive, thus the applicable safeguards analogically include mutatis mutandis the safeguards relative to a criminal action. Particularly, the safeguards established in Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 9 of the American Convention are relevant to this case’s analysis. Annex 27. Judgment of the First Civil Room of the Superior Court of Justice of Northern Lima, delivered within case file 0387-2007-0, June 22, 2007. Annex to the initial petition by petitioner Rodríguez Ricse, August 23, 2008. 53 Annex 28. Resolution of the Constitutional Court, passed within case file No. 5124-2007-PA/TC, December 20, 2007. Annex to the initial petition by petitioner Rodríguez Ricse, August 23, 2008. 54 Annex 28. Resolution of the Constitutional Court, passed within case file No. 5124-2007-PA/TC, December 20, 2007. Annex to the initial petition by petitioner Rodríguez Ricse, August 23, 2008. 55 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello and other “Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; IAHR Court. Case Baena Ricardo and others vs. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Court vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of February 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69-70; and Case López Mendoza vs. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 111. 56 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello and other “Magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; IAHR Court. Case Baena Ricardo and others vs. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Court vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of February 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69-70; and Case López Mendoza vs. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of September 1, 2011 Series C No. 233, para. 111. 57 IAHR Court. Case Barbani Duarte and others vs. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 118; and Case Claude Reyes and others vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Indemnities. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 118. 58 TEDH, Cudak v. Luthania. Application No. 15869/025. Judgment of March 23, 2010, para. 42. 52 11