36 141. Nonetheless, the Commission observes that this argument was raised in the amparo action brought by Mr. Homero Flor that was decided subsequently, thus this aspect will be taken into account in the analysis of respect for the Article 8 guarantees in connection with Article 25 of the Convention, with respect to that action. c. Alleged lack of impartiality of the Judge of Law 142. In relation to the right of every person to be tried by an impartial judge, the petitioners indicate that the judge of law who presided over the summary information proceeding in the case of Mr. Flor had also been his superior. - The Judge of Law and Mr. Flor’s superior were one and the same person 143. The IACHR observes first that as was shown in the section on facts proven, the decision of the Court of Law in the summary information proceeding was made by the Brigadier General of the Fourth Military Zone, Víctor Zabala, who at the same time was the Commander of the Fourth Military Zone and the Judge of Law of the Fourth Military Zone. 144. The Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings in force at the time of the facts established that once the investigative phase had culminated, with the issuance of the report by the military prosecutor, the “investigative Judge shall draw up the proposed resolution and will forward the proceeding to the Zone or Brigade Commander to continue the process.” Then, having “received the proceeding, the Zone or Brigade Commander shall take over the case and order that notice be given first for judgment….” Finally, it establishes that “the draft ruling does not … bind the Zone or Brigade Commander to abide by it, but it shall appear in the record that said authority will explain in his resolution the reasons for departing from the draft.”130 145. So while the Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings indicated that it was the investigative judge who drew up the draft ruling, it was not binding on the judge of law, Zone Commander Víctor Zabala, Mr. Flor’s superior. At the end of the day, it was the Zone Commander and Judge of Law Víctor Zabala who issued the decision that declares the responsibility of Mr. Flor. The Commission observes that the considerations of this decision, as well as the assessment made therein on the facts investigated and the evidence produced during the substantiation of the summary information proceeding, determined that Homero Flor was subsequently removed from his functions within the Ecuadorian Army. The rulings of the Council of Subaltern Officers and the Council of Superior Officers that ordered that Mr. Flor be placed on leave prior to his discharge were adopted by referring to the decision of the Court of Law. In that regard, the Commission considers it appropriate to highlight at this point that this was the only decision that examined the evidence to determine the disciplinary liability of Mr. Flor. 146. The Inter-American Court has reiterated that the right to be tried by an impartial judge or court is a fundamental due process guarantee, and that to that end one should ensure that the trier 130 See Articles 23 and 24 of the Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings in the Armed Forces. Annex 23. Rules of Procedure for Summary Information Proceedings in the Armed Forces. Ministerial Decree 1046, published in General Ministerial Order 240 of December 22, 1993. Petitioners’ brief filed September 24, 2012.