- 87 268. The Court emphasizes that the failure to provide a statement of reasons in the decisions of the Supreme Court had a direct effect on the absence of clarity as regards the legal grounds or the wrongful conducts based on which the presumed victims were dismissed. Each dismissal decision issued by the Supreme Court of Justice used between 35 and 65440 legal provisions as grounds, including substantive and procedural norms, without differentiating one from the others; some of a constitutional, legal or regulatory nature or from codes of ethics (including a model code) and even the [American] “Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.” In addition, in the two cases in which the dismissals were confirmed by the Judicial Service Council (Adán Guillermo López Lone and Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza), this body added normative provisions to found its decisions, without excluding the considerations of the Supreme Court and without explaining the relationship of the new provisions or the previous ones to the acts with which each victim was charged (supra paras. 95 to 103 and 118 to 120). 269. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Judicial Service Act and its Regulations contained residual clauses, such as article 55 (and its equivalent, article 174 in the Regulations to the Act), based on which all the presumed victims were accused and subsequently sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Justice, under which: In general, the following is considered misconduct by judicial officials and employees: failure to carry out the duties associated with the post; violation of the norms on incompatibilities for the exercise of their functions, or exercising their functions despite being aware of legal impediments prohibiting this.441 270. Nevertheless, as indicated by expert witness Ibáñez, “it is impossible to codify all assumptions” in disciplinary matters, so that “ultimately, there must always be a relatively open clause concerning professional duties.442 However, in these assumptions and when open or indeterminate disciplinary offenses are used, it is fundamental to provide a statement of reasons when applying them, because it is incumbent on the disciplinary court to interpret these norms respecting the principle of legality and observing the greatest rigor when verifying the existence of punishable conduct. With regard to this case, the Court has noted that the dismissal decisions issued by the Supreme Court and the decisions of the Judicial Service Council lacked adequate reasoning, precisely because they did not explain adequately the relationship between the acts that constituted a punishable conduct or behavior and the norms that were presumably violated (supra paras. 264 to 267). 271. Faced with the multiplicity of norms cited by the domestic organs that intervened in the disciplinary proceedings of the presumed victims, this Court considers that it is not incumbent on it to choose those that are best suited to the conducts of the presumed victims in order to determine whether or not they meet the requirements of precision and clarity called for by the principle of legality for norms of a punitive nature. Therefore, it is not possible to make a detailed analysis of the requirement of the substantive legality of the norms supposedly violated, owing to the absence of a statement of reasons. 440 In particular, 57 regulatory provisions were cited in the case of Mr. López Lone, 59 in the case of Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, 65 in the case of Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and 35 in the case of Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado (supra paras. 95, 115, 132 and 145). 441 This norm was in Chapter XI corresponding to the disciplinary regime. Cf. Judicial Service Act, article 55 (evidence file, folio 4166) and Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, article 174 (evidence file, folio 198). Also, in Chapter X of the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, article 160 corresponding to the incompatibilities, under which the presumed victims were sanctioned by the Supreme Court, established that: “[a]ny other prohibition that may be established by law to ensure effectiveness, impartiality and independence in the exercise of the functions, shall be observed with due rigor; without prejudice to offenders incurring responsibility.” Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act (evidence file, folio 192). 442 Expert opinion provided by Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez during the public hearing held in this case.