19 Second, irregularities arose from the application of criminal legislation by analogy. The alleged usurpation of functions was classified as a constitutional violation, and a criminal figure was used to convert it into a constitutional violation. However, the Constitution expressly prohibits the analogical application of a criminal norm. Third, the justices were deprived of the right to defend themselves, because they were not notified of the content of the complaint at the appropriate time, they were not allowed to question the witnesses and they were not allowed to exercise any type of defense during the proceeding, but only before the plenum and by arguments, rather than by evidence. These acts also violated constitutional provisions, such as article 139(5), 139(9) and 139(10), article 2(24), which establishes the principle of nullum crimen sine lege, and article 93, consistent with article 201, which establishes that the Constitutional Court justices may not be held responsible for any declarations that they make in the exercise of their functions. Furthermore, during the dismissal procedure, international human rights instruments engaging Peru’s responsibility were violated. The absence of due process violated the American Convention, particularly Article 8(2) concerning the defendant’s minimum guarantees; prior notification of the charge, the right to be heard with the due guarantees and within a reasonable period of time, by a competent judge or court, adequate time and means to prepare the defense and the right to question witnesses. In addition, Article 26 of the 1948 American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man was violated. Moreover, the Civil Procedural Code establishes the remedy of the party (recurso de parte) as a recourse; therefore, if a violation had occurred, the party, which was Congress itself, should have acted within the procedure, filing the pertinent remedy. Even if there had been a violation, if no remedy was exercised, the violation is validated, which means that it was not in order to issue articles of impeachment based on the clarification decision. The justices who had been dismissed could have filed an action for amparo in Peru against the decisions of Congress, because in this case the latter acted just like any other authority. However, this would have been inappropriate because the Constitutional Court itself was the final instance with regard to amparo, so that, in the final analysis, this action would have been decided by the Court from which they had been removed and which, in consequence, was composed of only four justices at the time. VII EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 43. Article 43 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that: Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto [...]. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, providing that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense.