plenary on the removal of the constitutional judges. 195 Consequently, the Court considered that “Congress did not ensure the dismissed judges the guarantee of impartiality required by Article 8(1) of the American Convention.”196 169. In addition, the Court noted that:197 (i) the Investigation Committee was given the express mandate that it could not examine any matter related to the exercise of the jurisdictional function of the Constitutional Court; but, in its report, the Committee ignored this mandate and indicated that there were irregularities during the adoption of various jurisdictional decisions of that Court; (ii) that the judges victims in the case were not summoned before the Committee again, so that when the latter drew up its report, it assumed that what two other judges of the Constitutional Court had said was true, without offering the alleged victims the possibility of exercising their right to present evidence for the defense; (iii) the defendants were not informed opportunely and fully of the charges against them and their access to the body of evidence was limited; (iv) once the victims had been informed of the constitutional charges against them the time granted to them to prepare their defense was extremely short; (v) they were not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on whose testimony the members of Congress had based themselves to initiate the impeachment procedure that concluded with the consequent dismissal, and (vi) the decision adopting the dismissal was not substantiated in any way. 2. The violation of judicial guarantees in relation to the termination of the judges and the impeachment proceedings against them 170. Having expounded the precedent of the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the Court will proceed to determine, initially, whether the resolution adopted by Congress declaring the termination of the judges, as well as the impeachment proceedings held against some of them, constituted an arbitrary decision that violated the guarantee of competence and the right to a hearing. In order to make this analysis, the Court finds it necessary to examine: (i) the legal grounds and the competence of the Congress to terminate the judges. Subsequently, (ii) the scope of the right to a hearing in relation to the decision to terminate the judges and to the impeachment proceedings, as well as the “ne bis in idem” principle. Then, the Court will describe (iii) the general standards for judicial independence and, lastly, will analyze (iv) the institutional aspect of judicial independence, the separation of powers, and democracy. 2.1. Legal grounds and competence to declare the termination 171. Article 8(1) of the Convention guarantees that the decision in which the rights of the individual are determined must be adopted by the competent authorities determined by domestic law. In this case, the termination of the judges entailed a determination of their rights in the sense that the consequence of this termination was their immediate removal from office, so that the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention are applicable. Accordingly, the Court will proceed to determine whether Congress had competence to terminate the judges. 172. The Court finds it necessary to examine the grounds used in Resolution No. R-0252005 of November 25, 2004, by which the National Congress terminated the members of the Constitutional Tribunal, in order to determine whether this removal from office falls 195 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 78. 196 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 78. 197 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, paras. 80 and 83. 50