91. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to appeal the ruling before a higher court, the Court refers to the analysis of the arguments relating to the right to judicial protection, in which it will examine the application for amparo filed by Mr. Cordero Bernal, as it has in previous decisions on this same matter.98 B.2 The principle of the application of the most favorable law 92. The Commission and the representatives argued that Article 9 of the Convention had also been violated because, at the time of the facts, two laws existed that established different legal consequences and the one that was less favorable to the interests of the presumed victim was applied. The Commission argued that the laws in force were the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) of June 2, 1993, which established the condition of suspension prior to the application of the sanction of dismissal, and the Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary (LOCNM) of December 5, 1994, that allowed the sanction of dismissal to be applied as the first option. Mr. Cordero Bernal was appointed to the First Criminal Court of the Superior Court of Huánuco on June 22, 1995; on July 11, 1995, he had presumably committed the conduct that was categorized as a disciplinary offense and, on August 16, 1995, his dismissal was ordered. 93. The Court recalls that Article 9 of the Convention refers to the principle of legality and the principle of the application of the most favorable law. Regarding the latter, the article indicates that “[a] heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed” and that “[i]f subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.” The Court has understood that the most favorable law should be interpreted as that which: (i) establishes a lighter punishment, or (ii) creates new grounds for justification, for innocence, or for an impediment to the implementation of the punishment, and that this did not constitute an exhaustive list.99 Even though the Court has not ruled expressly on the application of the principle of the most favorable criminal law to disciplinary matters, in its case law on Article 9 of the Convention it has made no distinctions between the scope of the guarantees it contains; rather, it has indicated repeatedly that this article, without any distinction between its contents, is applicable with regard to administrative sanctions.100 94. In the instant case, although the Commission argued that the LOPJ was in force at the time of the facts and, if it had been applied, would have allowed Mr. Cordero Bernal to be penalized with suspension, the Court finds that the LOCNM is a subsequent law that ordered the abrogation of any conflicting provisions.101 Therefore, the LOPJ remained in force in relation to the dismissal of paralegals, while it was abrogated in relation to the dismissal of judges, a matter that was then regulated by the LOCNM. This conclusions was supported by the expert witness proposed by the State who underlined that “based on criteria of hierarchy, temporality and specialty, it should be understood that article 31 of the LOCNM is the only Cf. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, paras. 246 to 250, and Case of Rico v. Argentina. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 2, 2019. Series C No. 383, para. 84. 98 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, para. 179. 99 For example, in the case of López Lone v. Honduras the Court indicated: “Article 9 of the American Convention, which establishes the principle of legality, is applicable to matters pertaining to administrative sanctions.” Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 257. 100 “Tenth. Abrogate Legislative Decree No. 25, article 226 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary and all the legal provisions that contradict this law.” Final and Transitory Provisions. Organic Law of the National Council of the Judiciary, November 25, 1994 (evidence file, folio 1646). 101 24