impaired the predictability of the procedure and the opportunities for Judge Colindres to prepare a defense Mr. Colindres had no way of knowing that he would have three days in which to exercise his right of defense because there were no regulations in that regard. In any event, the Commission considers that that amount of time was excessively short to prepare a defense, a fact aggravated by the vagueness of the offenses and behavior described in the motion for dismissal. 73. In addition, the Commission finds that, among other things, (i) Mr. Colindres did not have the opportunity to comment on the brief submitted by the PDC deputies to the officers of the Legislative Assembly (see par. 27 above); (ii) there is nothing in the record to suggest that the brief that he presented to the Special Committee in his defense was included in the case file that the Legislative Assembly had before it when it decided to remove him from office (see par. 26 above); and (iii) the information submitted by the TSE to the Special Committee that would have had an efect in clarifying the alleged conduct with which Judge Colindres was charged was not forwarded by the Special Committee, nor was Mr. Colindres offered a formal opportunity to present his observations in that regard; indeed, to the contrary, it was Mr. Colindres himself who relayed that information (see par. 25 above). 74. The Commission finds the sum of the above-mentioned irregularities amounted to a serious impairment of the principle of equality of arms, with the result that Judge Colindres was at a great disadvantage in terms of his possibilities of preparing and offering evidence in his defense at his hearing by the committee established for that purpose. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the State violated Mr. Colindres' rights to a hearing and defense recognized at Articles 8(1) and 8(2)(b) and (c) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations set forth in article 1(1) thereof. e. Review of the Punitive Decision and the Right to Judicial Protection 75. The right of appeal is recognized as a part of due process of law by Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention.107 With respect to this guarantee, the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary provide that “[d]ecisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review.”108 The review of a conviction demands the possibility of a comprehensive examination of the appealed decision,109 which requires that it be verified by a higher body that can analyze the questions as to fact, evidence, and law on which the challenged judgment is based.110 76. In the instant case, the Commission notes that the State has not demonstrated the availability of a remedy in the applicable legal framework that guarantees a review of a conviction in the context of a disciplinary proceeding. As regards the amparo application, the Constitutional Division’s decision of November 25, 1999 clearly states that "the Division is not the body to review the opinions expressed by the Legislative Assembly in Legislative Decree No. 348, or the material assessments or proceedings.” There is no evidence whatever to suggest a habeas corpus application, also attempted by Mr. Colindres, could potentially have succeeded in bringing about a review of the decision. Consequently, since there were no rules governing the possibility of appealing against the Legislative Assembly's decision, the State violated Mr. Colindres' right recognized in Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty. [… continuation] necessary based on the reports of such committees.” See response of the State of El Salvador to the communication of the petitioners in Case 12.311, Eduardo Benjamín Colindres, May 22, 2006. Enclosed with the State's note OEA-104/06 of May 20 326. The Assembly's lack of authority to create such a committee was also pointed out by the "Court Prosecutor" (see par. 31 above). 107 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004, par. 158. 108Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Principle 20. I/A Court H.R, Case of Herrera Ulloa vs. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, par. 165. 109 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013, Series C, No. 260, par. 245. 18