88. In this regard, it is not up to the IACHR to determine whether the leave granted and the subsequent judicial appointment by Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez were justified or not according to internal law, nor whether the alleged victim committed a serious infraction. However, pursuant to the aforementioned standards on judicial independence, as well as domestic law itself, in a case such as this one, the disciplinary authority was required to provide justification that clearly established the reasons for which Mr. Cajahuanca Bernal’s actions could be considered serious and, while not criminal, compromising to the dignity of the office in the eyes of the public, to the point of meriting such a severe sanction. 89. In this regard, the Commission observes that the ruling to sanction offers no justification in this regard and is limited to indicating that Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez’s misconduct was serious and represented a failure to comply with essential duties. The Commission also notes that, in the framework of the criminal process, the Supreme Court of Justice’s ruling to acquit argued that it was problematic to maintain his conviction in for having allegedly conspired with former judge Cordero Bernal on issuing a resolution when the latter had been acquitted of all charges. The Commission also observes that the problems like the ones indicated were a result of the very lack of precision and foreseeability of the disciplinary laws applied in this case, as described above. 90. Based on these considerations, the Commission finds that the Peruvian State violated, to the detriment of Humberto Cajahuanca Vásquez, the right to well-founded decisions in conjunction with the principle of judicial independence, both enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 4. Right to appeal58 and the right to judicial protection 59 91. The right to appeal a ruling is part of the legal due process of a disciplinary sanction proceeding60 and is a basic guarantee whose purpose is to prevent consolidation of an injustice.61 As regards the scope of the right to appeal, both the IACHR and the Court have found it requires examination of the case by a judge or tribunal that is both different and higher in rank, weighing aspects of both fact and law of the decision being appealed.62 It must move forward before the judgment attains status of Res Judicata, and must be resolved within a reasonable period of time, and it must be timely and effective—that is, it must provide the result or resolution for which it was established. It also must be accessible, without requiring excessive formalities that make the right illusory.63 92. The IACHR recalls that States have a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to people who allege having been victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which should be in accordance with the rules of legal due process (Article 8(1)). For a remedy to exist, it is not enough for it to be provided for by law; rather, it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.64 93. In this case, the Commission notes that both law 26,397 and the Political Constitution hold that the decisions of the National Council of the Judiciary are not appealable, and that writs of amparo are only admissible when the process violates due process guarantees. The Commission notes that the alleged victim tried to challenge the decision to dismiss, filing a writ of reconsideration, which was resolved on December 4, Article 8(2) establishes the “right to appeal the judgment to a higher court.” Article 25(1) of the American Convention stipulates that: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 60 IACHR, Guarantees for the Independence of Justice Operators. Towards strengthening access to justice and the rule of law in the Americas, OEA/ser.L/V/II.Doc.44, December 5, 2013, para. 235; Inter-American Court, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218. Para. 179. 61IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12,820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para. 186. 62IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12,820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para. 186. 63IACHR, Report No. 33/14, Case 12,820, Manfred Amrhein et al., Costa Rica. April 4, 2014, para. 186 and following. 64 Inter-American Court, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158. Para. 125; Inter-American Court, Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125. Para. 61; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 58 59 17