which the guarantees of due process are complied with” are compatible with the Convention. It indicated that the proceedings file against the presumed victims “did not comply with the principle of judicial independence” because, among other matters, the proceedings meant that they were “prosecuted due to the import of their decisions.” 60. The representatives indicated that the principle of judicial Independence was seriously affected by subjecting members of the Supreme Court of Justice to impeachment based on the rulings made in the exercise of their jurisdictional functions. 61. The State argued that impeachment is not an “assault on the independence of the powers […], but endeavors to improve the functioning of the principle of the separation of powers.” It indicated that this mechanism “respects a procedure in which those subject to impeachment are notified of the charges against them, offer and produce evidence, are heard and present their defense arguments.” A.2. Competence of the disciplinary authority and applicable procedures 62. The Commission argued that the incorporation of ad hoc procedural rules when the proceedings had already commenced violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, which “indicates that both the disciplinary authority and the procedure to be followed must be previously established by law.” 63. The representatives indicated that the incorporation of procedural rules applicable to the specific case by Senate Resolution No. 122 violated Article 8(1) of the Convention. 64. The State argued that the procedure followed for impeachment proceedings was determined by the Constitution and that Resolution No. 122, establishing the “timetable for the impeachment proceedings,” completed the constitutional rules. A.3. The right to an impartial authority 65. The Commission argued that Senate Resolution No. 122 established that no recusals would be admitted and this prevented the presumed victims from questioning the impartiality of the disciplinary authority, “a guarantee that had special relevance” because “they argued that impeachment was based on discriminatory grounds.” The Commission added that it “did not rule out that political deals had been made with regard to the result of the impeachment.” 66. The representatives argued that there had been “prior agreement on the removal and the distribution of the posts in the Judiciary,” and this had resulted in the “prejudgment” of the presumed victims. They added that the prohibition of recusals enabled members of the Senate to intervene who were allegedly prevented from participating for “personal reasons.” 67. The State indicated that impeachment constitutes an “administrative and constitutional mechanism of political assessment,” that is decided collectively, so that “disqualifications or recusals” are not applicable. It added that no evidence had been provided proving that there had been “meetings, arrangements, agreements or decisions before the facts.” A.4. The right to be heard and the right of defense 68. The Commission argued that it had insufficient evidence to determine how, in practice, the time frames established in Resolution No. 122 affected the right to be heard and the right of defense. 19