179. The Commission and the representatives argued the alleged violation of the judicial guarantee of impartiality due to the judges’ stereotyped approach to the case. The Commission pointed out that given “their consideration of [Ms. Atala’s] sexual orientation as a key element in her fitness as a mother, together with the evident use of discriminatory prejudices,” it may be concluded that Ms. Atala “was not afforded the guarantees of impartiality.” The representatives added that the annulment of the Appeals Court judgment by the Supreme Court of Justice was a violation of judicial independence. The Commission and the representatives argued that all the aforementioned affects access to justice, for which reason they alleged the violation of Article 8.1 200 and Article 25201 of the American Convention. 180. Furthermore, the representatives argued that the Supreme Court “admitted [d] a remedy of complaint […], in a case that was inadmissible, breaching the rules of due process and the [internal objective] independence of judges” and by ordering a disciplinary sanction to be applied to the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Temuco “for having a specific interpretation” of the Civil Code. They considered that “through a remedy which by legal stipulation does not constitute an instance, as is the case of the recurso de queja (remedy of complaint), the Supreme Court heard and issued a ruling in a case that had already been decided and processed by the pertinent authorities before the respective competent courts.” Moreover, the representatives argued a violation of the right to judicial fairness because the decision of the Supreme Court “is based on prejudice and lack[ed] a rational and juridical basis.” Finally, they indicated that Ms. Atala does not wish “once again [...] to subject [the girls] to the pressure of a custody trial [...] renouncing the return [... of] the girls to the family unit with their mother.” 181. The State argued that “the Supreme Court of Justice did not exceed its powers, nor did it abuse them when, after confirming the grave misconduct or abuse, and endorsing the remedy of complaint, it decided to annul the appealed ruling, issuing instead a replacement judgment.” On the other hand, the State denied a violation of Article 25.1 of the Convention with the argument that the petitioner “could have and can still try to revoke the decision of the Supreme Court by filing […] a new custody petition regarding the girls, with the only requirement of proving that any of the circumstances that prompted the judgment has changed,” given that the ruling that grants custody to the girls’ father “only has formal res judicata.” It concluded that “in order to affect the right to appeal against a judicial ruling, it is necessary to prove the existence of a violation of the due process when this was issued, without the aggrieved party having a means of appeal, whatever that may be, through which it may revert the alleged breach of fundamental rights.” Considerations of the Court 200 Article 8.1 of the American Convention(Right to a Fair Trial) establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 201 Article 25.1 of the American Convention(Right to Judicial Protection) provides: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 57