-22was to guarantee Mr. Colindres Schonenberg the right to a hearing, and not to carry out the dismissal, which was ordered by the Legislative Assembly based on what was determined by the Constitutional Division. 87. Therefore, since the competence of the Legislative Assembly was not established by law, the dismissal of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg violated his right to be tried by a competent tribunal, as provided in Article 8(1) of the Convention. B.2.b Absence of a previously established procedure 88. The Court has indicated that people have the right to be tried in accordance with prior and legally established procedures, which is why the State should not create courts that do not apply duly established procedural rules to replace the jurisdiction that normally corresponds to ordinary courts.125 89. Salvadoran legislation did not establish an "express procedure for the removal of judges" from the TSE (supra para 83). The Constitutional Division interpreted that the Legislative Assembly could order the dismissal of a TSE judge provided that the right to a hearing was guaranteed.126 Following this decision, for the second dismissal of Mr. Colindres Schonenberg, the Legislative Assembly agreed to form a Special Commission of five deputies “for the purpose of dictating an informational document guaranteeing the right to a hearing for Eduardo Benjamín Colindres.127” 90. As noted (supra para 86), the decision of the Constitutional Division did not replace the duty of the State to previously establish the procedure through which a dismissal of a TSE judge could be carried out. The absence of a previously established procedure prevented Mr. Colindres Schonenberg from knowing what procedure he was going to be subject to and when he could defend himself. This constitutes an additional violation of the judicial guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention. B.2.c Other alleged violations of due process and the principle of legality 91. The Commission and the representatives also alleged that the principle of legality, the right to be heard, the right to be tried by an impartial body, the right to a defense, including the prior and detailed communication of the accusation and the granting of adequate time and means to prepare a defense, the duty to provide reasons and the right to the presumption of innocence were all violated. 92. Because the Court has determined that the procedure used and the body involved in the dismissal of the alleged victim was not established by law, it is not necessary to analyze the other guarantees established in Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention.128 For this reason, the court deems it unnecessary to find on the alleged violations of the principle of legality, the right to be heard, the right to be tried by an impartial body, the right to a defense, including the prior and detailed communication of the accusation and the granting of adequate time and means to prepare defense, the duty to provide reasons and the right to the presumption of innocence. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 129, and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 05, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 50. 126 Cf. Resolution of the Constitutional Division of November 4, 1997 (evidence file, folio 369). 127 Cf. Legislative Agreement No. 281 of March 24, 1998 (evidence file, folio 384). 128 Similarly, cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 181, and Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 241. 125