“December 1, 2004, [when] the members of the Constitutional Tribunal […] had been acquitted, […] the President of the Republic called members of Congress to a special meeting of Congress, but failed to convene the judges.” Consequently, “[o]n December 8, 2004, the National Congress met [without] notifying the judges who were going to be tried a second time.” They concluded that “[t]he judges […] had no opportunity to intervene […] in the proceeding [of December 8, 2004], to be heard, to exercise the right of defense and [to be able to influence] the decision in the case.” 5. Arguments on the obligation to provide the reasoning 138. Regarding the impeachment proceeding, the Commission argued that “the disciplinary sanctions imposed on a judge, can never be motivated by the legal opinion that he or she has expounded in a decision.” 139. In relation to the impeachment proceeding, the representatives argued that “since the motion of censure was the ruling in a proceeding in which Congress acted as judge […], the motion should have been duly reasoned, [and] not merely approved the removal of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal, because [Congress] had sufficient votes to do this.” They added that, even though “the legitimate reason to remove [judges] relates to ineptitude or conduct that disqualifies the judge,” “the members of the Constitutional Tribunal were removed […] owing to […] their opinions in two rulings, [and] the debates reveal that accusations of corruption and partiality were made, which were the real reason for their impeachment and which were not even mentioned in the motion of censure.” 140. The State did not comment on the obligation to provide the reasoning in impeachment proceedings. 6. Arguments on impartiality 141. Regarding the presumed lack of impartiality of the National Congress, the Commission indicated that even though, initially, insufficient votes had been obtained to censure the judges, the President of the Republic called a special session in which a second vote was taken, obtaining the majority needed to achieve a motion of censure. In the Commission’s opinion “[t]his sequence of events indicates that […] the actions of the National Congress were not objective.” 142. The representatives considered that the principle of impartiality was violated “[d]ue to the existence of political, rather than legal, grounds, owing to preconceived interests, based on which it was not important whether or not the members of the [Constitutional Tribunal] were guilty of the charges against them, or that they had previously been acquitted of these same charges [on December 1, 2004], and because the matter responded to the interests of the President and of several political parties at that time.” 143. The State argued that “it would appear difficult to respect […] the principle impartiality in an impeachment proceeding […] owing to the juridical nature of this type control, which is political.” It considered that “since [impeachment] is based on freedom opinion and the political interpretation of the law, processed by a State organ that seeks protect fundamental public interests, the principle of impartiality it not easy to apply.” 7. of of of to Arguments on the right to appeal the judgment 144. The representatives argued, in relation to the termination of the judges, “[t]he violation of the right to appeal […] de iure and de facto: de iure because the Constitution 43