National Congress to impeach the members of the Constitutional Tribunal,145 and the Court’s conclusion of the “abuse of power” that occurred in this case, 146 I consider that it was essential to analyze the violation of the principle of legality with regard to the impeachment proceedings and to conclude that Article 9 of the Pact of San José had been violated; hence, my dissent from the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment.147 I will now explain my position in greater depth. B) The punitive nature of a decision in order to be able to apply Article 9 of the American Convention in a specific case 1. Case law of the Inter-American Court 112. According to the case law of the Inter-American Court, the principle of legality established in Article 9 of the American Convention is applicable, in principle, to criminal matters. However, the ICourtHR itself has also considered it applicable to matters relating to administrative sanctions. 113. Thus, in the case of Baena Ricardo v. Panama,148 the Inter-American Court considered: 106. With regard to the foregoing, it is desirable to analyze whether Article 9 of the Convention is applicable to the matters of administrative sanction, in addition, evidently, to being applicable to criminal matters. The terms used in this article seem to refer exclusively to the latter. However, it is necessary to take into account that administrative sanctions, as well as criminal sanctions, constitute an expression of the State’s punitive power and that, on occasions, the nature of the former is similar to that of the latter. They both entail impairment, deprivation or alteration of the rights of the individual, as a consequence of unlawful conduct. Therefore, in a democratic system it is necessary to take extreme care to ensure that the said measures are adopted with strict respect for the basic rights of the individual, and subject to a careful verification of the existence of the unlawful conduct. In addition, and to ensure legal certainty, it is essential that the punitive norm, whether criminal or administrative, exists and is known or can be known, before the act or omission occurs that violates it and for which punishment is intended. The definition of an act as being unlawful, and the determination of its legal effects must precede the conduct of the individual who is considered to be an offender. Otherwise, the individual would be unable to adjust his or her behavior in accordance with a valid and certain legal system that expresses the reproach of society and its consequences. These are the grounds for the principles of legality and the non-retroactivity of an unfavorable punitive norm.149 (Underlining added) 114. Furthermore, the ICourtHR has stated that the principle of legality constitutes one of the central elements of criminal prosecution in a democratic society by establishing that “no one may be sentenced for acts or omissions that, at the time they were committed, 145 According to Article 130(9) of the 1998 Ecuadorian Constitution; Cf. paras. 67 and 201 of the Judgment. 146 Cf. para. 219 of the Judgment. 147 To the contrary, in the case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, the National Congress did not have competence to terminate the justices of the Supreme Court, while it did have competence to conduct impeachment proceedings against the members of the Constitutional Tribunal. This absence of punitive competence, in principle, made it unnecessary for the Court to declare the existence of an implicit sanction and an abuse of power in the case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Consequently, in that case, my opinion was concurring and not dissenting; Cf. my Concurring Opinion in the Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, especially para. 89. 148 Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C, No. 72, para. 106. 149 Cf., inter alia, Eur. Court H.R. Ezelin judgement of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 202, para. 45; and Eur. Court H.R. Müller and Others judgement of 24 May 1988, Series A no. 133, para. 29. 31