5 process guarantees is not limited to judicial remedies strictly speaking, but that it encompasses the set of requirements that should be observed in the various judicial procedures. 24. Specifically, the petitioners argued that: - The State violated the right to due process, the right to be heard with proper guarantees, and the right of defense, given that on November 25, 2004, despite the convening of an impeachment proceeding, the National Congress, by a mere resolution – which was adopted in a very brief process, against express provisions of the Constitution and in violation of the procedures of an impeachment trial – resolved to terminate the judges, considering that they had been illegally designated in 2003. The State violated the principles of res judicata and non bis in idem, since the second vote, on December 8, 2004, by the National Congress, was equivalent to subjecting the judges to a new trial for the same facts for which they had already been absolved on December 1, 2004, plus they were not given notice of the new convening of the impeachment proceeding, which is why they were unable to exercise their rights to reply and defense, and were tried in absentia. The State violated the guarantee of “impartial tribunal,” for the National Congress acted as “party” and “judge at the same time,” and, additionally, the majority already had formed a conviction with respect to the case. The State violated the guarantee of “competent tribunal” insofar as the National Congress went forward with an impeachment proceeding for votes cast by some members of the Constitutional Court in the performance of their functions, therefore it did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The State violated the guarantee of “independent tribunal” insofar as the impeachment proceeding provided for in the Constitution cannot be used to control the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court or to bring pressure to bear against its judges, for this would constitute, as effectively happened, illegitimate interference in the judicial function, which would weaken the democratic form of government. In addition, the Executive branch pressured Congress to remove the members of the Constitutional Court by means of an unconstitutional call to special sessions. The State violated the right to appeal the judgment insofar as there is no higher body to appeal to in order to controvert the unconstitutional ruling by Congress. Consequently, they hold, the State violated the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1, 8.2 (b), (c), (d), (h), and 8.4 of the American Convention. - - - - 25. Regarding the freedom from ex post facto laws enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, the petitioners submit that in accordance with the precedents set by the Inter-American Court, that principle is applicable to administrative matters, in that they represent the State’s exercise of punitive power. They add that the freedom from ex post facto laws entails not only that actions and omissions be identified as offenses, but also that the procedure and possible penalty be defined. Specifically, the petitioners submitted the following arguments: - - The judges were terminated (cesados), i.e. administratively sanctioned, for a situation that is not provided for in the legal order, and against express provisions of the Constitution. The National Congress established a sanction by means of a procedure – resolution – not provided for in the law, thus the guarantee of a prior proceeding was impaired. As regards the first impeachment proceeding of December 1, 2004, the members of the Constitutional Court had already been terminated, which meant that they were