69. The representatives argued that the right to be heard had been violated because the prior notification of the charges had not been made within a reasonable time. In addition, insufficient time had been allotted to prepare the defense and to obtain the corresponding evidence. They indicated that, during the proceedings, “even though they let the [defense] counsel speak, they did not listen to them because a decision had already been taken to dismiss [the justices].” 70. The State argued that the application of Resolution No. 122 did not violate judicial guarantees because the presumed victims had 18 days to prepare themselves between the notification of the charges and the actual presentation of their defense. It indicated that the defendants took more time than established in the said resolution to present their arguments. A.5. The right to duly reasoned decisions 71. The Commission argued that the resolution dismissing the presumed victims did not establish the reasons and merely indicated that the motion to remove them for improper performance of their functions had been adopted, indicating the number of votes issued. This prevented the presumed victims from understanding the reasoning behind the decision, including how their conduct corresponded to the disciplinary offense in question. 72. The representatives argued that the resolution dismissing the presumed victims from office lacked factual and legal reasons. They indicated that “[t]he absence of factual and legal reasons meant that the resolution was absolutely invalid.” 73. The State argued that Senate Resolution No. 134 “cannot be read in abstracto, but must be read together with the debate,” because the said resolution “is merely the operative part of a series of considerations that arise from the parliamentary debate and that explain the reasons for the measure adopted.” A.6. The right to appeal the judgment 74. The Commission argued that the principle of judicial independence required the application of the right to appeal the judgment pursuant to Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, to proceedings for the dismissal of judges. In this specific case, the presumed victims did not have access to a higher authority to obtain a review of the decision that sanctioned them. 75. The representatives argued that, by barring the possibility of appealing the decision that was made in the impeachment proceedings, Senate Resolution No. 122 violated a fundamental rights that “cannot be denied.” 76. The State argued that impeachment proceedings do not allow for a review of the evaluative aspect of the dismissal decision and that this is derived from the relevant international case law and legal doctrine. A.7. The principle of legality 77. The Commission argued that the standard that was cited of “improper performance of their functions,” was extremely vague and enabled the charges to include a series of jurisdictional decision protected by the principle of judicial independence. 78. The representatives argued that, although the concept of “improper performance” is established in the Constitution, it is not defined by law, and this could give rise to arbitrary actions, as in the instant case. 20