116. According to the representatives, since the alleged victims were “not notified that decisions were being made regarding their rights and legal status in the judiciary, they had no opportunity to participate in the proceeding, be heard, exercise their right to defend themselves or influence the decision on this matter.” They added that the “procedure established by the Constitution in force at the time contemplated an impeachment proceeding, which [would] include some guarantees for the defense. However, the National Congress did not even use this proceeding to determine the judges’ rights. Congress conducted its own proceeding, consisting of a parliamentary resolution, which required a simple majority.” Therefore, they argued that “serious accusations were made against the judges, which were considered as grounds for their dismissal, and the judges were unable to contribute with their facts, refute these assertions, be heard and conduct their defense,” and consequently Article 8 of the Convention had been violated. The representatives emphasized that “the judges heard what was happening at this session on the radio, were never summoned because the convocation supposedly concerned constitutional matters, and they never knew that their rights were being discussed.” In their final written arguments, the representatives alleged that Article 8(2) of the Convention was violated in this case because the “impeachment proceeding [was not followed, since] the judges were not previously notified of the charges that would be made against them in Congress, and were not given an ample opportunity to be heard, because they were not granted the time or place to defend themselves and present evidence, because no reasons were given, because there were no remedies to challenge the decision and because no other mechanisms were available.” 117. The State argued that “no formal notification was given, but instead the action was publicized, as confirm[ed] in the live broadcast of the Special Sessions by several national media organizations.” 4. 118. Arguments regarding the obligation to state reasons The Commission made no reference to this argument. 119. The representatives argued that “[n]o evidence was offered during the session, only rhetorical arguments and assertions without any evidentiary support.” They added that the “debates which took place in Congress on the day of the resolution, of [December] 8, 2004, [we]re not reflected in Resolution N. 25-181.” In this regard, they noted that “the judges were dismissed for reasons not provided for by law and not stated in the resolution, except for the mention of ‘acts of corruption’ in the whereas clauses.” During the public hearing, the representatives emphasized that, in accordance with “the standards referred to in the case of Chocrón, for example, […] the Resolution must contain […] evidence, must take into account the arguments, and the parties must be heard” but that in this case “there was nothing [since it was] a resolution containing a transitory provision, which was irrelevant and, moreover, was not applicable.” 120. The State did not present arguments on this point. 5. Arguments regarding the alleged lack of impartiality of the National Congress 121. As to the guarantee of impartiality, the Commission considered that this case “involves a series of elements that give rise to reasonable doubt regarding the impartiality of the National Congress,” for the following reasons: i) “the National Congress’s evidently arbitrary interpretation of Transitory Provision 25”, and ii) “the National Congress’s failure to exercise its supposed competence to terminate the functions of the [Supreme Court] 38