aspects related to Article 8 of the Convention.” 99 Consequently, this should have provided an additional incentive to rule on their merits, as it was also probable that the Judgment would have autonomously declared the violation of the rights not analyzed. 81. Similarly, the Judgment notes that “although it has already been stated that the National Congress did not have jurisdiction to dismiss the Supreme Court judges from office, bearing in mind that the State acknowledged this point and that it is one of the guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Court shall proceed to analyze it”. In other words, the Inter-American Court deemed it appropriate to analyze the right to a hearing enshrined in that article of the Pact of San Jose but, by contrast, did not do so in relation to other judicial guarantees contained in Article 8(2) thereof. 82. In this case, precisely because the Judgment expressly described the resolution adopted by the National Congress as “unacceptable” and an “abuse of power” 100, the InterAmerican Court should have ruled on the other arguments concerning the rights under Article 8(2) of the Convention. It should also be recalled that in other cases where the Inter-American Court has declared a specific violation, this has not prevented it from considering it pertinent to specify other aspects of the State’s international responsibility and, on occasion, to declare additional or complementary violations. 101 This was justified taking into account the specificities of the case. Given the “untimely” dismissal of Ecuador’s High Courts and its dramatic effects on the institutional facet of judicial independence declared in the Judgment, I consider that the Inter-American Court should not have avoided responding to those arguments related to conventional due process, involving the dismissal of the Supreme Court justices, with special significance for the democracy defended by the Inter-American System. 102 83. The need for exhaustive arguments would have been especially relevant, since it was highly probable that the Court would have reached a separate declaration on the violation of these rights had these been considered. We must not forget, also, that the right to due process is really comprised of a set of inseparable and requisite elements; 103 therefore respect for these is inconceivable if they are not satisfied, fully and in their totality. In this regard, the analysis of the other judicial guarantees allegedly violated, would have possibly established more robust standards on due process for judges or magistrates, subjected to 99 Paragraph 20 of the Judgment. 100 Paragraph 177 of the Judgment. 101 In the Case of Kimel, the Inter-American Court issued a ruling on the proportionality of the restriction of the victim’s freedom of expression. Although in its analysis of strict legality the Inter-American Court declared the respective violation, it included an analysis of other components of the principle proportionality. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 81-94. Also, in the case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, even though the Inter-American Court pointed out that the military criminal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, it nevertheless analyzed the fact that the military jurisdiction failed to act with due diligence in the investigation. The Inter-American Court stated that the “few investigatory actions, and the speed with which they were carried out, reflect little or no interest of the military criminal jurisdiction in carrying out a serious and exhaustive investigation into the events that occurred.” It should be emphasized that the Inter-American Court also analyzed the effectiveness of the intervention of other courts, such as the disciplinary tribunal. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 192-204. 102 It should not be forgotten that the Preamble of the American Convention establishes its “intention to consolidate in this hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man.” 103 Cf. García Ramírez, Sergio, El debido proceso. Criterios de la jurisprudencia interamericana, Mexico, Porrúa, 2012, p. 23. 20