29 Gómez, Gonzalo Zambrano Palacios, Milton Moreno Aguirre, Arturo Donoso Castellón, Ernesto Albán Gómez, Hernán Quevedo Terán, Jorge Andrade Lara, Clotario Salinas Montaño, and Armando Serrano Puig. 3. Analysis whether the State incurred in a violation of the rights established in Article 8 of the Convention 113. Furthermore, as regards the right to be judged by a competent authority, the Court has established that people have “the right to be heard by regular courts, following procedures previously established 99 (…) to prevent persons from being judged by special tribunals set up for the case, or ad hoc.” 100 In the present report, the Commission concluded that at the time of the victims’ appointment, the constitutional provisions enacted on July 23, 1997 – establishing indefinite tenure for justices and the use of the cooptation system to fill vacancies – were in force. The Commission believes it is clear that under those constitutional norms, the National Congress did not have the legal power to terminate the functions of the Supreme Court justices. 114. In this report the IACHR stated that the institution of impeachment before the legislative branch is a legitimate mechanism of control under the rule of law. However, in the instant case the constitucional and legal competence of the Congress to remove from office the magistrales of the Supreme Court of Justice, has not been established. 115. The Commission recalls that the rule invoked by Congress to claim competence and terminate the victims in this case was Transitory Provision No. 25 of the Constitution, the text of which, as indicated above (supra 111), makes it clear that it was not applicable to the victims. Furthermore, although the congressional resolution of December 8, 2004, referred to the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, which gave the legislature certain powers, it has also been established that those provisions were not consistent with the subsequent constitutional norms of July 23rd, 2007 that ruled the situation of the justices of the Supreme Court of Justice. That situation was confirmed by the secretary of the National Congress at the request of the body’s president during the legislative debate of December 8, 2004. 101 116. Regarding the guarantees of independence and impartiality, the Court has ruled that although they are related, 102 it is also true that they each have a legal content of their own. 103 As the Court has said: One of the principal purposes of the separation of public powers is to guarantee the independence of judges. 104 Said autonomous exercise shall be guaranteed by the State both in 99 I/A Court H. R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 50; Citing: Case of Castillo Petruzzi v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C No. 52, para. 129; and No. 5 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary. 100 I/A Court H. R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 50. 101 Annex 15. Transcript of the recording of the regular permanent morning session of the National Congress of December 8, 2004. Deed 24-001-IV. (Annex to petitioners’ submission, received on May 24, 2007.) 102 I/A Court H. R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 55; Citing the following: “For example, the Committee Against Torture has stated: ‘The Committee is concerned at the judiciary’s de facto dependence on the executive, which poses a major obstacle to the immediate institution of an impartial inquiry when there are substantial grounds for believing that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.’ United Nations Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations: Burundi, CAT/C/BDI/CO/1, para. 12. 103 I/A Court H. R., Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 5, 2008, Series C No. 182, para. 55.