Rapporteur has indicated that “disciplinary measures to be adopted must be in proportionality to the gravity of the infraction committed by the judge.”21 27. Based on the foregoing, with regard to the breadth of Article 31.2 of the LOC, I consider that the majority opinion should have considered that the CNM, when sanctioning Mr. Cordero Bernal using the said provision, applied a norm that was not sufficiently defined, which constituted a violation of the principle of legality, taking into consideration also that the decision did not specify the interpretive criteria used. 28. Unfortunately, in this judgment, on the basis of its considerations in the case of López Lone et al., the Court held that “the precision of a disciplinary sanctioning norm may differ from that required by the principle of legality in criminal matters, owing to the nature of the disputes that each one is called on to decide” so that “the problems of the imprecision of a disciplinary offense cannot be examined in abstract, but rather in light of the grounds established by the judge when applying it.”22 Therefore, it considered that “the Court must establish whether the decision imposing the sanction of dismissal on Mr. Cordero Bernal was adequately substantiated” and “decide whether the arguments made by the National Council of the Judiciary provided content to the norm that was applied,” “whether the decision took into account the effects that the conduct examined could have on the exercise of the judicial function, by an adequate reasoning and interpretation” and “the seriousness of the conduct and proportionality of the sanction.”23 29. Thus, the majority opinion considered that “the [National Council of the Judiciary’s] decision was duly substantiated and was not arbitrary and, consequently, neither the guarantees of due process nor the principle of legality established in the [American] Convention were violated.”24 30. To reach this conclusion, the majority opinion assessed different matters that revealed the irregularities committed by Mr. Cordero Bernal when he adopted a decision of a jurisdictional nature25 regarding which the judgment considered that it “was not totally Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur in the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy. Doc. UN. A/HRC/11/41, para. 57. Available at: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/11/41. Also, on this matter, the judgment in the case of López Lone v. Honduras indicates: “the Court reiterates that the guarantee of tenure for judges requires that they may not be dismissed or removed from office, unless they commit acts that are clearly punishable; in other words, based on the most serious grounds of misconduct or incompetence. Therefore, the Court considers that, based on the guarantee of judicial tenure, the grounds for removing judges from their posts must be clear and established by law. […]. Moreover, the possibility of dismissal must abide by the above-mentioned principle of extreme gravity. Indeed, the protection of judicial independence requires that the dismissal of judges be considered as the ultima ratio in judicial disciplinary matters.” Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 259. Cf. Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur in the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy. Doc. UN. A/HRC/11/41, para. 58. 21 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 77. 22 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 82. 23 Cf. Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of February 16, 2021. Series C No. 421, para. 89. 24 In particular: (i) the National Council of the Judiciary made “a detailed analysis of the facts that led to the dismissal decision and of the reasons that allowed this conduct to be classified as a serious disciplinary offense”; (ii) that the Investigation Report and the decisions of the OCMA and the CNM describe in detail the irregularities in which Mr. Cordero Bernal allegedly incurred by taking the decision granting unconditional release to two defendants”; (iii) that “[a]ccording to the disciplinary bodies, that decision was not in keeping with the supposed provisions established in the laws of Peru for granting this benefit”; (iv) that, by “not conducting any procedure of a substantive nature during the proceedings; [by taking] the decision to grant unconditional release prior to the expiry of the 25 7