76. Article 8(2) of the Convention establishes the minimum guarantees that must be ensured by the States in keeping with due process of law.83 The Court has ruled in its case law on the scope of this article and has established that it is not limited to criminal proceedings, but has extended it, insofar as applicable, to administrative proceedings before state authorities and to non-criminal judicial proceedings in the constitutional, administrative and labor sphere.84 It has further stated that in these and other matters, “the individual also has the overall right to the due process applicable in criminal matters.”85 Thus, the guarantees of Article 8(2) of the Convention are not exclusive to criminal proceedings but can be applied to proceedings of a punitive nature. The issue in each case is to determine the minimum guarantees that concern a specific non-criminal punitive process, in accordance with its nature and scope.86 77. Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s dismissal by decision of the National Congress was a violation of his rights, as the consequence was his immediate removal from his position as a member of the TSE. The Court will now examine whether it was consistent with the guarantees of due process set forth in Article 8 of the American Convention. 2(1). Authority of the National Congress to order dismissal 78. The Court has established that Article 8(1) of the Convention guarantees that decisions determining the rights of individuals should be made by competent authorities as provided under domestic law. It must therefore consider whether the Congress was competent to dismiss Mr. Aguinaga Aillón from his office on the TSE. 79. The Court will caution, in the first place, that Article 130 of Ecuador’s 1998 Constitution empowered the Congress to hold impeachment proceedings on TSE members. It also made TSE subject to potential impeachment proceedings “for constitutional or legal offenses committed in the performance of their duties” and that "Congress may censure them if they are found guilty by a majority of its members.” The article went on to say, “censure shall produce immediate dismissal from office.”87 80. The Court cautions, in the second place, that the grounds for dismissal of TSE members, set forth in National Congress Resolution 25-160 of November 25, 2004, were that “the regular and alternate members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal were appointed without consideration for the provisions of Constitution Article 209 or the laws of Ecuador.”88 This shows clearly that the National Congress dismissed the TSE officers on the argument Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 137, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 68. 83 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 68. 84 85 68. 86 68. Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 70, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala, supra, para. 75, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. Cf. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, August 11, 1998, Article 130 (evidence file, folios 2278 and 2279). 87 88 Cf. Resolution R-25-160 of the National Congress, November 25, 2004, published in the Official Gazette No. 378 (evidence file, folios 1795 and 1796). 26