58. In any event, in disciplinary proceedings instituted by the legislative branch, the guarantee of impartiality (Article 8(1) of the Convention) remains wholly applicable since the decisive aspect for determining the respective guarantees is the punitive nature of the power being exercised by the authority in question. The guarantee of impartiality entails that the members of the Legislative Assembly “have no direct interest in, a pre-established viewpoint on, or a preference for one of the parties, and that they are not involved in the controversy.”89 When impartiality is being determined, regard must be had, from a subjective standpoint, to the personal conviction and behavior of a judge in a given case, but also, from an objective perspective, if sufficient guarantees are offered to exclude any legitimate doubt in that respect.90 59. In the instant case, from a purely institutional standpoint, it is difficult to rationalize that the Legislative Assembly was an impartial organ to punish members of the TSE; that is, the highest authority for such matters, which adjudicated cases in which the parties from which the members of the Legislative Assembly came had an interest. The Commission notes that, according to available information, the above risk to judicial independence materialized precisely in the case of Judge Colindres, since he was dismissed by members of the PDC for conduct attributed to him in relation to cases that involved their own party. 60. Thus, in relation to the first dismissal, Decree 899 established that Mr. Colindres had “acted with bias” in relation “to the internal problems of the Christian Democrat Party.” The record shows that that decree was adopted by the plenary of the Assembly, in which the vice speaker of the Assembly, who belonged to the PDC, took part (see par. 20 above). As for the second dismissal, Decree 348 reiterated the grounds set out in Decree 899 and was adopted by a majority vote of the Legislative Assembly in which deputies belonging to the PDC participated (see par. 28 above). In addition, there were various statements by members of the PDC who took part in the proceedings that clearly evince their interest that Judge Colindres be removed from office for jeopardizing the interests of a faction of that party. Specifically, party members said that Judge Colindres should be removed in view of his behavior in relation to cases that involved the party, or even that his conduct “breached” a constitutional principle since he had been nominated by the PDC (see pars. 22, 23, and 27 above). 61. In sum, having analyzed information presented by the parties, the Commission finds it sufficiently demonstrated that the deputies of the PDC who belonged to the Legislative Assembly and who, therefore, were part of the disciplinary organ, had the intention of punishing Judge Colindres for the way he had acted in cases that involved the PDC, having had a vested interest in the outcome of those cases. The foregoing is incompatible with the guarantee of impartiality recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention, which was ignored to Mr. Colindres' detriment. c. The Principle of Legality and the Obligation to Justify Decisions 62. The principle of legality contained in Article 9 of the American Convention governs the actions of State organs in the exercise of their punitive power.91 That principle applies to disciplinary processes, which are “an expression of the punitive powers of the State” given that they entail an impairment or alteration of the rights of individuals as a consequence of illicit conduct.92 89I/A 90 Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, par. 146. See, ECHR, Case of Thomann v. Switzerland, Judgment of 10 June 1996, § 30. 91I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 176. Cf. I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, par. 107. 92 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015, Series C No. 302, par. 257, and Case of Maldonado Ordoñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, par. 89. I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. Case v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, pars. 106 and 108. 15