-25example, when their futility has been revealed in the practice, because there is no way of executing decisions or due to any other situation that constitutes a denial of justice.140 The process should lead to materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling.141 102. On the other hand, this Court has indicated that Article 8(1) of the Convention implies that the State must guarantee that the decision produced by the proceedings satisfies the end for which it was conceived. The latter does not mean that the right must always be granted, but rather that the capacity of the body to produce the result for which it was conceived be guaranteed.142 103. In the previous cases related to the removal of judges by the legislative power, the Court has found that actions conducted before Congress in the procedure for the dismissal of judges, which were subject to legal provisions that should have been precisely observed, may be the object of a legal action or recourse on due legal process. 143 In the Case of Constitutional Court v. Peru, it was specifically pointed out that "this control does not imply an evaluation of the acts of a strictly political nature that the Constitution attributes to the Legislature.”144 104. In this case, the amparo application was available to examine compliance with due process in the dismissal procedure. 105. After the second dismissal, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed an application for constitutional relief alleging that: i) “the Legislative Assembly does not have constitutional powers to dismiss a [TSE] judge”145; ii) he was “tried twice for the same charges,”146 and iii) a variety of violations of due process.147 In response, the Constitutional Division declared the application to be inadmissible, only examining whether the Legislative Assembly has the power to dismiss a judge of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and whether Mr. Colindres Schonenberg has been prosecuted twice for the same charges.148 106. Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed a second amparo application against the decree that dismissed him in which he indicated, among other arguments, that the Constitutional Division in the already resolved amparo application had not ruled on the violation of due process.149 Specifically, Mr. Colindres Schonenberg argued that his right to a hearing was not respected since, among other things, he would not have had a real opportunity to defend himself, that the Special Commission concealed evidence, that his brief presented before the Political Commission had not Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 58, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 247. 141 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 198. 142 Cf. Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 122, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 170. 143 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. 94, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 236. 144 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001, para. 94. 145 Cf. Amparo application of July 15, 1998 (evidence file, folio 507). 146 Cf. Amparo application of July 15, 1998 (evidence file, folio 508). 147 Cf. Amparo application of July 15, 1998 (evidence file, folios 505 and 506). 148 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Division of May 4, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1552). 149 Cf. Amparo application of July 27, 1999 (evidence file, folio 555). 140