DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EDUARDO FERRER MAC-GREGOR POISOT CASE OF CORDERO BERNAL V. PERU JUDGMENT OF FEBRUARY 16, 2021 (PRELIMIMARY OBJECTION AND MERITS) INTRODUCTION 1. With the greatest respect, I dissent from the decision taken in this judgment. I consider that an opportunity was lost to reaffirm inter-American case law concerning judicial independence and to explore in detail the level of reasoning that is required in an administrative proceeding to sanction a judge involving open or indeterminate disciplinary offenses. 2. My dissent focuses on the conclusion adopted by the majority on the absence of State responsibility for the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Mr. Cordero Bernal, thereby closing the case. I consider that the majority should have considered a different analysis to the way in which the case was approached by way of the examination of judicial independence and the principle of legality, and by due process and the effectiveness of the application for amparo. 3. The purpose of the instant case was the administrative disciplinary proceeding that was instituted, and that concluded with the dismissal of a judge owing to the delivery of a decision that was strictly jurisdictional granting unconditional release to two defendants. This domestic ruling was the reason for his dismissal because the National Council of the Judiciary (hereinafter “the CNM”) considered that the conduct was “serious” and, pursuant to domestic law, the CNM’s decision could not be reviewed by a court. The application for amparo was the only remedy admissible as we will see below. It is worth noting that, after eight years had passed, Mr. Cordero Bernal was acquitted of the offenses of “complicity” and “breach of trust” that he had been accused of, based on the same facts that were the grounds for the disciplinary proceeding leading to his dismissal. 4. The majority opinion considered that the decision issued by the CNM was duly substantiated and, consequently, this provided context to the categorization of the action of then Judge Cordero Bernal as serious. On this basis, in the judgment, the Court did not declare the State’s international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8, 9 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Pact of San José).1 5. On the contrary, as I will explain below, I consider that it should have analyzed judicial independence — in its aspect of an enhanced guarantee of the tenure of judges – and the principle of legality together. Indeed, the problem of the imprecision of the disciplinary offense applied to Mr. Cordero Bernal is related not only to the alleged violation of the principle of judicial independence in relation to the guarantee of tenure, but also to the alleged violation of the principle of legality. This is because as it relates to disciplinary sanctions imposed on judges, compliance with the principle of legality is of vital importance insofar as it constitutes Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, paras. 86 to 91 and 96. 1 1