prosecutors, within the framework of an alleged arbitrary process of evaluation and ratification to which they were subjected by the National Council of the Judiciary between 2001 and 2002, which resulted in their removal from their positions. Among the alleged violations are the lack of justification for the non-ratification decisions and the principle of legality, the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and for the victims to have adequate time and means for a defense, political rights, the right to appeal the ruling and judicial protection. 106. First, the Court will refer to the specific guarantees necessary to safeguard the judicial independence of the judges and their applicability to prosecutors due to the nature of the duties they undertake. Second, it will examine the process of evaluation and removal from office of the judges and the prosecutor with respect to the alleged violations related to the right to have duly substantiated decisions (Article 8(1)); with the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means for a defense (Article 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c)), and political rights due to the arbitrary separation of charges (Article 23(1)(c)). Finally, it will analyze the right to judicial protection (Article 25(1)). VIII-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS and DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LAW PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 104 Arguments of the Commission and the parties A.1. Right to judicial guarantees, judicial independence, right to expect duly substantiated decisions and the principle of legality 107. The Commission held that within the context of the process of evaluation and ratification of judges and prosecutors by the National Council of the Judiciary undergone by the alleged victims Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, the State is responsible for the violation of various rights of the American Convention. The Commission considered that in order to adequately determine the guarantees that the State should provide to the alleged victims in each specific case, the nature of the process of evaluation and ratification of judges and prosecutors must be established and it considered that it is a procedure of a materially punitive nature, since it was essentially intended to assess the conduct, suitability and performance of judicial officers. It argued that in said process a criterion was used based on the convenience of the magistrates' tenure in office and pointed out that it was not a strict legal review, nor was it based on objective criteria that guaranteed real accountability and did not allow a wide margin of discretion to the decision-making authority in charge, which was incompatible with the guarantee of enhanced stability for judicial officers. It added that when it comes to sanctioning proceedings, both the Commission and the Court agree that the guarantees of Article 8(2) of the American Convention are similarly applied and that the due guarantees of Article 8(1) of the American Convention are also applicable. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the guarantees established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 9 of the American Convention would be applicable to the aforementioned process. 108. The representatives for the alleged victims also considered that the process to which the alleged victims were subjected is of a disciplinary nature and generally referred to the indications given by the Commission. 105 Articles 1(e).1, 2, 8(1), 8(2)(b) y 8(2)(c) of the American Convention. Mr. Cuya Lavy’s representatives indicated that, materially, it is a sanction with more serious scope than those of other administrative sanctions. Walter Valenzuela's representation indicated that the purpose of the process was to evaluate the conduct and suitability of judges and prosecutors in the performance of their duties, through a procedure of 104 105 28