I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. Proceedings before the Court. On August 6, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted the case of Cuya Lavy et al. against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State of Peru”, “the State”, or “Peru”) to the jurisdiction of the Court. According to the Commission, the case is related to a series of alleged violations in the context of the National Council of the Judiciary’s (hereinafter also “CNM” as per its initials in Spanish) evaluation and ratification process undergone by the alleged victims in this case, the judges and prosecutors Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy ( hereinafter also “Jorge Cuya” or “Cuya Lavy” or “Mr. Cuya”), Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado (hereinafter also “Jean Díaz” or “Díaz Alvarado” or “Mr. Díaz”), Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse (hereinafter also “Marta Rodríguez” or “Rodríguez Ricse” or “Ms. Rodríguez”) and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna (hereinafter also “Walter Valenzuela” or “Valenzuela Cerna” or “Mr. Valenzuela”), between 2001 and 2002. According to the Inter-American Commission, the State violated, under the judicial guarantees provided by the American Convention, the right to know in advance and in detail the accusation made and to have adequate time and means for a defense, since during the procedure of evaluation and ratification, the alleged victims would not have had the opportunity to present evidence in their defense regarding the accusations, charges, reports and complaints against them, since they were not informed of their existence prior to the decision. The Commission also established the violation of the principle of legality, because the decisions of non-ratification issued by the CNM lacked substantiation and the legal procedural framework did not establish duly defined grounds that would allow the alleged victims to understand the specific behaviors evaluated and which of these could be considered as serious offenses justifying non-ratification. Additionally, the Commission considered the violation of the right to appeal the ruling and the right to judicial protection, since the current regulatory framework established that the CNM's decisions regarding evaluations and ratifications of judges and prosecutors were not reviewable in court, and that no possibility existed for the presentation of a judicial remedy against a potential violation of human rights emanating from said resolutions. Finally, the Commission concluded that the State violated the alleged victims’ political rights. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. – The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) Petition. Between May 2003 and July 2008, the Commission received four petitions presented by Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse and Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, alleging Peru was responsible for the violation of various provisions of the American Convention. The petitions were recorded under No. 320-03, No. 948-04, No. 739-08 and No. 1065-08, respectively. b) Admissibility Report. On March 24, 2015, the Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 19/15 1, which was notified to the parties on April 13 of the same year. In said report, petitions No. 320-03, No. 948-04, No. 739-08 and No. 1065-08 related to Messrs. Cuya, Valenzuela, and Díaz, and Ms. Rodríguez, respectively, were joined. The Commission made this available to the parties in order to reach an amicable solution. 2 c) Merits Report. On December 7, 2018, the Commission approved Merits Report No. 159/18 (hereinafter also “the Merits Report” or “Report No. 159/18”), in accordance with 1 The Commission declared the case admissible with respect to Articles 8, 9, 23 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention and inadmissible with respect to the claims related to Articles 5, 11, 24 and 26 of the same instrument. 2 During the processing of the petition before the Commission, three of the alleged victims, Messrs. Valenzuela and Díaz Alvarado, and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse initiated a friendly settlement procedure with the State, which did not reach an agreement. 4