regarding the moment and the procedure used for the substitution of the justices who resigned or were dismissed, or on the existence of specific matters submitted to the consideration of the Supreme Court at the time that may have resulted in a special interest in substituting its members. 129. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the impeachment proceedings to which the presumed victims were subject did not observe the guarantees of due process and, in particular, did not comply with the requirement of the impartiality of the authority in charge of the proceedings. Indeed, given that a position had been taken in advance, owing to the existing political agreement, the members of the Senate lacked subjective impartiality to decide on the removal of the defendants. In this Court’s opinion, the impeachment of the justices was merely a means of creating vacancies on the Supreme Court of Justice. 130. The Court is aware that agreements and consensuses may constitute efficient decisionmaking mechanisms in the political arena. However, in the instant case and as previously indicated, judicial independence required that the decisions taken respected the guarantees of due process – ruling out arbitrariness – in order to reinforce the system of the separation of powers and to avoid undue interference in the jurisdictional function (supra paras. 95 and 98). Consequently, the subjective impartiality of the organ in charge of the procedure was essential. 131. In addition, article 2 of Senate Resolution No. 122 establishing the procedure for the impeachment proceedings stipulated that “recusals [would] not be admitted.”145 This prohibition prevented the defendants from calling for the separation of those members of the legislative body who were suspected of bias. Thus, notwithstanding the lack of subjective impartiality that has been verified, during the impeachment proceedings, specifically at the session of November 26, 2003, the defense of one of the defendants cited specific reasons for doubting the objective impartiality of certain members of the Senate, indicating that the impossibility of filing a recusal motion against them violated procedural guarantees.146 132. In conclusion, the right to an impartial authority was violated during the impeachment proceedings due to the existence of a prior political agreement and also to the impossibility of filing recusal motions against members of the Senate. Therefore, the State violated Article 8(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea. 133. Consequently, verification of the existence of a prior agreement on the result of the impeachment proceedings renders it unnecessary to examine the arguments concerning the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention owing to the inexistence of specific standards that I, annex 4 to the Merits Report, folio 9). Also, during the debate before the Chamber of Deputies, one of its members stated that the “the real reason for the impeachment was merely the loss of trust in, or the lack of political support for, the justices of the Court.” 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 2960). To the contrary, in their testimonial statements, Marcelo Duarte Manzoni and Carlos Sebastián Acha Mendoza mentioned, respectively, the “extremely alarming” situation of the Judiciary and the “improper functioning of justice,” which “was well-known.” Testimonial statement of Marcelo Duarte Manzoni, provided during the publics hearing before this Court, and testimonial statement of Carlos Sebastián Acha Mendoza (evidence file, volume IX, affidavits, folios 13609 and 13610). In addition, numerous statements were made in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate to justify the alleged “improper performance” of the justices. Cf. Inter alia, 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, folios 23 to 67), and 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 10489 to 10546). 145 Cf. Resolution No. 122 of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 25, 2003 (evidence file, volume IV, annex VI.B to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 6863 to 6865). 146 Cf. Transcript of the session of the Senate of the National Congress of the Republic of Paraguay of November 26, 2003 (evidence file, volume V, annex 4.3. to the answering brief, folios 10204 and 10205). 35