77. In its Judgment, the Inter-American Court omitted an analysis of other judicial guarantees enshrined in Article 8, invoked by the Inter-American Commission and referred to by the victims’ representatives, considering that “having determined that the body that carried out the process was not competent, it is unnecessary to examine the other guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention” 94; and that, given the effects on the separation of powers and the arbitrary nature of the action by Congress, the InterAmerican Court considered that “it is unnecessary to analyze in detail the arguments of the parties as to whether or not the decision to dismiss the judges was an action of a punitive nature, and therefore it will not examine its alleged effects on Article 8(2) of the Convention, or other aspects related to the possible scope that the principle of legality (Article 9 of the Convention) might have had in this case.” 95 78. In my opinion, the Inter-American Court could have analyzed this point and taken advantage of this opportunity to consolidate its case law on matters of due process applicable to procedures for the removal of judges. Indeed, just as the Inter-American Court analyzed the violations of the right to a hearing and some components of the right of defense (in light of Article 8(1) of the Pact of San Jose), the Court could also have conducted a specific analysis of the violation of other rights established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, expressly referred to by the Inter-American Commission and argued by the victims’ representatives. This, in consideration of the few opportunities that the Court has to rule on this matter and the institutional weakness that on occasion affects the region’s judiciary and constitutional courts, when assailed by the political powers, a situation that unfortunately is not infrequent. 79. As I stated previously (supra para. 63), the Inter-American Court currently has an interpretative role erga omnes of the American Convention which extends beyond the scope of a particular case. This is of particular importance considering the limited number of cases it decides, owing to the design of the Inter-American System of Human Rights; the situation is very different in the European System, especially since the entry into force of Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which abolished the European Commission, allowing direct access to the Strasbourg Court. 96 Thus, under the inter-American system of justice, the extension of the “conventional rule interpreted” 97 beyond a particular case (res interpretata) takes on particular significance, constituting yet another element in the construction of a ius constitutionale commune americanum, or at least - and for nowlatinoamericanum— 98, in order to guarantee a minimum standard for the regional applicability of the American Convention in favor of human rights and human dignity. 80. It should not go unnoticed that the Judgment itself, in analyzing the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility, considers that “disputes persist on other 94 Para. 181 of the Judgment. 95 Idem. 96 In the last Annual Report for 2012, the European Court of Human Rights had 128,100 cases pending resolution. Cf. European Court of Human Rights. Annual Report 2012, Strasbourg, 2013, pp. 4, 6, 7 and 150. 97 Cf. Case Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of March 20, 2013, para. 67 and following paragraphs, the Inter-American Court established that the “conventional rule interpreted” is related either to the particular case (res judicata) or to general effects for the other States Parties to the American Convention (res interpretata). This is of particular importance for the “conventionality control” that should be exercised by all national authorities, in line with their respective competencies and the corresponding procedural regulations, and is also useful in the implementation of the Inter-American Court’s decisions. 98 Cf. von Bogdandy, Armin, Morales Antoniazzi, Mariela, and Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo (coords.), Ius Constitutionale Commune in Human rights in America Latina, Mexico, Porrúa-IMDPC-Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, 2013. 19