could be sanctioned with “dismissal from office and suspension of political rights.”47 Expert witness Oleas Rodríguez explained that, as in the case of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, members of the TSE could be dismissed only “following impeachment proceedings,” which the Congress was empowered to conduct under Article 130 of the Constitution.48 59. This Court holds, therefore, that although the TSE did perform administrative, organizational, and management duties for electoral processes,49 it was also tasked with hearing and adjudging matters pertaining to electoral justice. The Court concludes that the TSE conducted materially judicial functions in the sphere of elections, and its members, such as Mr. Aguinaga Aillón, therefore enjoyed the same guarantees of judicial independence as judges generally, given the materially judicial nature of their duties. B.1 Judicial independence, judicial guarantees, the right to participate in government, and the right to work 60. In view of all this, and considering the State’s recognition of responsibility, the Court will now examine whether the procedure followed by the National Congress was consistent with the obligations set forth in the American Convention for judicial independence in connection with the right to judicial guarantees and the right to participate in government. The Court will begin by reiterating the fundamental standards on judicial independence developed in its own case law. On the basis of these standards, it will then proceed to examine the breaches of Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s right to judicial guarantees and give its views on the alleged violations of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws and his right to participate in government. 1. Judicial independence 61. This Court has ruled on multiple occasions concerning the importance of judicial independence under the rule of law.50 It has held, in its settled case law, that this is one 47 Cf. Law on Elections, published in the Official Gazette No. 117 of July 11, 2000, Article 155(e) (evidence file, folio 2135). 48 Cf. Written expert witness statement by Medardo Oleas Rodríguez, delivered by affidavit before a public attestor, pg. 5 (evidence file, folio 2758). Cf. Written expert witness statement by Diego Jadán-Heredia, delivered by affidavit before a public attestor, pp. 3 and 4 (evidence file, folios 2723 and 2723). 49 50 Cf. Inter alia, Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 73 to 75; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 145 and 156; Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, paras. 43 to 45, 84 and 138; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, paras. 67, 68, 70 to 81; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, paras. 97 to 100; Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, para. 186; 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, paras. 144 to 154; Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, paras. 188 to 198; Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 147; Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, paras. 190 to 199; Case of Valencia Hinojosa et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 327, para. 105; Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 19