will examine whether the procedural guarantees were respected. Lastly, the Court will rule on the arguments relating to the violation of the protection of honor and dignity, and to equal protection by the law. B.3.1. Judicial independence and the impeachment of Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea 110. The analysis of the actions taken in the instant case allows the Court to note that, in the indictment filed against the three justices who were originally subject to impeachment, the Chamber of Deputies included 20 charges that it considered constituted “improper performance of their functions.”119 Subsequently, once the proceedings before the Senate sitting “as a court” had commenced, the Indictment Committee withdrew several of those charges and ratified five in order to continue processing the impeachment of the presumed victims (cases 1, 2 and 4 with regard to Justice Fernández Gadea, and cases 1, 2, 7 and 14 with regard to Justice Ríos Ávalos). For its part, the Senate “t[ook]note of the […] withdrawal by the prosecution” and continued the proceedings.120 Also, at the start of the session of December 12, 2003, the Senate was informed of Justice Luis Lezcano Claude’s resignation121 and consequently excluded him from its final decision.122 111. Therefore, the subsequent impeachment proceedings and, in particular, the final decision taken by the Senate referred to the five aforementioned charges contained in the articles of impeachment filed against the presumed victims. 112. The examination of each of these five charges reveals that they all, without exception, referred to decisions delivered by the defendants in the exercise of their jurisdictional functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice (supra paras. 32 and 33). Consequently, these were judicial decisions that, in general according to the indictment, the Chamber of Deputies had considered to be “[violations of the Constitution and the law, attacks against the principle of the separation of, and balance between, the powers, abuse of authority and rupture of the institutional framework].”123 113. It is worth mentioning that, during the impeachment proceedings, on several occasions during the debates before the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, the issue was addressed of the authority of the Legislature to “review” decisions issued by the judicial authorities as part of their inherent functions. Accordingly, when proposing the draft articles of impeachment, the argument was made that the Chamber’s intention was not to review the said decisions, but rather to “evaluate whether […] they ha[d] been issued in keeping with the Constitution and the law.”124 Then, during the debate before the Senate, it was indicated that the intention of this organ was not to revoke judicial decisions, but rather to “refer” to certain Cf. Resolution No. 134 of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 18, 2003, and Statement of reasons (evidence file, volume V, annex 5.1. to the answering brief, folios 10556, 10558 to 10560, 10562 to 10569, 10571 to 10582 and 10593 to 10595). 120 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 3, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.5. to the answering brief, folios 10345, 10345, 10350 to 10353 and 10356 to 10360). 121 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.7. to the answering brief, folios 10486 to 10546). 122 Cf. Resolution No. 134 of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of December 12, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 8 to the Merits Report, folios 77 and 78). 123 Cf. Resolution No. 134 of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 18, 2003, and Statement of reasons (evidence file, volume V, annex 5.1. to the answering brief, folio 10562). 124 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Chamber of Deputies of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 18, 2003 (evidence file, volume I, annex 7 to the Merits Report, folio 49). 119 30