person through a disciplinary proceeding and that this is compatible with the American Convention. In this regard, the Commission recalls that the organs of the Inter-American system authoritatively interpret the American Convention, and thus may determine whether said judicial interpretation is in accordance with the Convention. In the present case, the decision of the Constitutional Court, invoking Article 23 of the Convention, is incompatible with said Article; both organs of the system concluded as much in López Mendoza v. Venezuela, and this is reaffirmed in the instant case. 128. By virtue of the above considerations, the IACHR concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for the violation of Articles 23(1) and 23(2) of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same to the detriment of Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego. Specifically, the violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal measures is constituted by the entry into force and application to the case of the norms of the Single Disciplinary Code that vest the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation with the power to disqualify, as well as the recent criminalization of being elected while disqualified by a disciplinary or fiscal decision. B. Right to a fair trial85 and judicial protection86 1. General considerations 129. The Commission recalls that both organs of the inter-American system have stated that the guarantees provided in Article 8 of the American Convention are not limited to criminal procedures, but also apply to other types of procedures.87 Specifically, in relation to proceedings to determine sanctions, both organs of the system have stated that the guarantees provided in Article 8(2) of the American Convention apply.88 Taking into consideration that in this case two disciplinary actions to disqualify, a sanction of dismissal, and two fiscal sanctions were imposed, it is evident that these were proceedings to determine sanctions, and, thus, the guarantees of due process apply, as provided in Article 8(2) of the American Convention. For the present case, the following rights become very relevant: the right to a disciplinary authority that is competent, independent and impartial; the principle of presumption of innocence; as well as the right to appeal the sanctioning judgment to a higher and/or judicial instance, in relation to the judicial protection. Next, the Commission shall provide some general considerations related to said guarantees. 130. The IACHR recalls that guarantees of independence, competence, and impartiality must be satisfied by authorities engaged in disciplinary proceedings, as it becomes a materially jurisdictional function and an essential assumption of due process, independent of whether the disciplinary authority is formally a tribunal.89 In relation to the impartiality of a disciplinary authority, in accordance with the American 85 Article 8 states in the relevant that: “1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 86 Article 25 of the American Convention establishes in the relevant that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 87 IACHR, Report No. 65/11, Case 12.600, Merits, Hugo Quintana Coello et. al., “Supreme Court of Justice,” Ecuador, March 31, 2011, para. 102; I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127; Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 69-70; and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 111. 88 IACHR. Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. A Review of the Standards adopted by the Inter-American System of Human Rights. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129. September 7, 2007, paras. 98-123; and Case No. 12.828, Report 112/12, Marcel Granier et. al., Venezuela, Merits, November 9, 2012, para. 188; I/A Court of H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 126-127. 89 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Judicial Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas. OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 188. 24