83. In the instant case, with regard to the guarantee of impartiality, the Commission observes that while the amparo appeal lodged by the alleged victims was being processed and a decision was pending before the Supreme Court of Justice, the President of the Supreme Court, Jorge Rivera Avilés, issued an official statement on January 3, 2013, ordering the replacement of the four justices who had been dismissed. The Commission notes that the aforementioned justice, as head of the judiciary, was later part of the Special Constitutional Chamber that rejected the alleged victims’ challenge on constitutional grounds and rejected the subsequent appeal for review. 84. These actions are problematic, in the Commission’s view, considering that this justice ordered the justices’ replacement and thereby upheld the dismissal that was being challenged by means of a constitutional action that was under his consideration and was pending a decision. 85. The Commission considers that this situation raises serious doubts about his partiality, as it reveals that his approach to the case was not devoid of bias and subjectivity. Likewise, the Commission does not observe that the justice called into question provided convincing evidence that would erase legitimate fears or reasonable suspicions about his partiality. 86. In addition, the Commission underscores that on January 29, 2013, the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected the alleged victims’ constitutional appeal in limine, in other words without examining the merits of the matter, as it deemed that it did not have the authority to hear amparo appeals filed against the National Congress. 87. The Commission notes that the alleged victims attempted to challenge the decision to reject their appeal, filing an appeal for review with the Plenary of the Supreme Court, which was rejected on February 18, 2013. The Commission observes that the President of the Supreme Court created the Special Chamber that heard and decided upon the constitutional appeal, and then later he was part of the Plenary that rejected the appeal for review lodged by the dismissed justices, as was explained earlier. 88. In the Commission’s view, the amparo appeal that was filed ended up being ineffective to protect the rights in question. Therefore, the Supreme Court, through its Special Chamber and later as a Plenary, by declining to review the decision of the Congress on the merits, left the alleged victims completely defenseless, as it failed to fully examine the aspects of both fact and law with respect to the decision to remove the four justices of the Constitutional Chamber, limiting its analysis to matters of jurisdiction. In addition, the Commission considers that the President of the Supreme Court’s actions as described earlier violated the guarantee of impartiality in the context of the constitutional amparo appeal lodged by the alleged victims. 89. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the Honduran State is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma. 6. Political rights 87 90. The Inter-American Court has indicated that: i) respect for judicial guarantees implies respect for judicial independence; ii) the scope of judicial independence translates into a judge’s subjective right to be dismissed from his position exclusively for the reasons permitted, either by means of a process that complies with judicial guarantees or because the term or period of his mandate has expired, and iii) when a judge’s tenure is affected in an arbitrary manner, the right to judicial independence is violated, in conjunction with the right to have access to and remain in public office, under general conditions of equality, established in Article 23(1)(c) of the American Convention. 88 The Court has found that access in equal conditions would constitute an insufficient Article 23 of the American Convention (“Right to Participate in Government”) establishes, in its pertinent sections: “1. Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities… c. to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his country. 2. The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age, nationality, residence, language, education, civil and mental capacity, or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings.” 88 I/A Court H.R., 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, par. 155. 87 18