to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service, and (ii) the possibility of appealing decisions determining the non-ratification of a judge. The State noted that the Court, in paragraph 206 of its judgment, had stated the need to bring the State’s domestic laws into line with the guarantees established in the American Convention. Peru stated that it understood that the amendment or adaptation of its legal framework (at the regulatory, legislative or constitutional level, taking into account the legal hierarchy of the Peruvian State) that was required to comply with operative paragraph 10 was a process that pertained to its domestic laws. It added that its understanding was that “the considerations expressed by the [Court] in the […] judgment mean that the adoption of measures to adapt the State’s domestic legal system, as called for paragraph 206, could be inferred from a comprehensive reading of the judgment to entail only the reinstatement of judges who have not been ratified within the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service, and to the possibility of appealing decisions determining the non-ratification of a judge, and that completion of this process would constitute full compliance with operative paragraph 10.” Therefore, it asked the Court to clarify, via hermeneutics, that “this adaptation of the legal framework does not extend to other additional guarantees, in order to avoid creating false expectations and confusion regarding the reparation measure ordered by the [Court]” (emphasis in original). 13. The second point has to do with the State’s actions to suspend, nullify, eliminate, discontinue, or any others that would curtail the processes used to evaluate and ratify judges, whether such actions are finalized, in process, or still pending. In this regard, Peru held that the non-repetition measures ordered by the Court are in relation to the stipulations of paragraph 204 of the judgment, where the Court acknowledges that the State has adopted a number of regulations governing the evaluation and ratification procedure currently in effect, through the constitutional reform on the establishment and responsibilities of the National Board of Justice of the Judiciary (also, “JNJ”), the Organic Law of the JNJ, and the regulations governing the comprehensive evaluation and ratification process for judges of the Judiciary and prosecutors of the Public Prosecution Service. Peru added, however, that the Court had found in paragraph 206 the State was to adopt measures to adapt its legal system with respect to the reinstatement of non-ratified judges to the Judiciary or the Public Prosecution Service, and to the possibility of appealing decisions determining the nonratification of a judge, specifying that “while the measures are not adopted, the State authorities are under the obligation to exercise ex officio conventionality control between domestic regulations and the [Convention];” thus, it ordered the State to continue with the evaluation and ratification processes that are under way and/or to be carried out. Therefore, the State asked the Court to confirm that, in operative paragraph 10, pursuant to paragraphs 204 and 206 of the judgment, “it has not ordered the State of Peru to suspend, nullify, eliminate, discontinue, or perform any other kind of action that would curtail the processes used to evaluate and ratify judges, whether such actions are finalized, in process, or still pending. This would prevent confusion regarding the scope of the reparation measure ordered by the [Court]” (emphasis in the original). 14. The Commission was of the opinion that the wording of operative paragraph 10 and paragraphs 203, 204, 205 and 206, and of paragraphs 1326 and 1337 of the judgment was Paragraph 132 states that: “Furthermore, this Court pointed out that ‘‘in the opinion of the Court, to a process of evaluation or ratification, insofar as it involves the possibility of dismissal of the officials evaluated in cases of incompetence or poor performance, the guarantees of due process characteristic of disciplinary processes are applicable, although their scope may be different in content or intensity’”. 7 Paragraph 133 notes that: “In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines of due legal process, which refers to the set of requirements that must be observed in the procedural instances so that individuals are in a position to adequately defend their rights before any act of the State that may impair them. In this sense, in its established case law, this Court has indicated that it is required of any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions may affect the rights of individuals, to adopt said decisions with full respect for the guarantees of due legal process.” 6 4