(supra para. 167) and without being granted the right to be heard (supra para. 169); therefore, the State violated Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the 27 victims in this case, because they were dismissed from office by an incompetent body that did not grant them an opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the Court declares the violation of Article 8(1) in conjunction with Article 23(1) (c) and Article 1(1) of the American Convention, given the arbitrary effects on the tenure in office of the judiciary and the consequent effects on judicial independence, to the detriment of the 27 victims in this case. * 181. 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. 214 Therefore, the Court will not examine the arguments presented by the Commission and the representatives regarding the alleged violation of other judicial guarantees. Similarly, given the effects on the separation of powers and the arbitrary nature of the action by Congress, the Court considers it 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. 182. The State also argued that the representatives had been mistaken in claiming that the violation of Article 1(1) 215 of the Convention occurred as “an automatic effect […] because of the mere allegation of a violation of articles of the [American Convention]”, since in order to “demonstrate non-compliance with international obligations it [was] essential to present legal arguments, and not mere descriptions of the facts.” In this sense, the State argued that “it [was] necessary to understand the successive amendment processes that have occurred in the State”, since “not doing so would also limit the regulatory and protective aspect that is clearly appreciated in Article 1(1) of the Convention.” The State argued that this “showed that at different historical and political moments subsequent to the dismissal, the State, within each sphere of power (legislative, executive and judicial), made effective efforts to restore the political and constitutional order, and these facts were confirmed in 2005.” Based on the foregoing considerations, the State asked the Court not to declare the violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 183. In this regard, the Court recalls its constant jurisprudence since the case of Velásquez Rodríguez, according to which Article 1(1) of the American Convention “specifies the obligation assumed by the States Parties in relation to each of the rights protected. Each claim alleging that one of those rights has been infringed necessarily implies that Article 214 In other cases related to military criminal jurisdiction, the Court has stated that it is not necessary to rule on other arguments concerning the independence or impartiality of a judge, together with other guarantees, once the conclusion has been reached that he was not competent. Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010, Series C No. 220, para. 201; Case Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 161; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 177; Case Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 124, and Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 115. 215 Article 1(1) of the American Convention (Obligation to Respect Rights) establishes that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 53