23(1)(c) and 11 of the Convention, which protect the right to participate in government and the right to privacy. He asserts that Article 24 of the Convention, which guarantees the right to equal protection of the law, was also violated because only certain Supreme Court Justices were impeached on the basis of judicial decisions made by all nine of them. 50. The jurisprudence of the inter-American system of human rights indicates that the rights protected in Article 8 of the American Convention may be applied not only to criminal trials, but also to administrative or other kinds of proceedings. Thus, taking into consideration the relationship between judicial guarantees and the independence of the judicial power as one of the essential elements of the rule of law, the lack of application of certain guaranties to the process undertaken to remove the petitioner of his position as Supreme Court Justice could constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Furthermore, the lack of a ruling on the constitutionality challenges filed by the petitioner may tend to establish a violation of Article 25 of the Convention, regarding the availability of a remedy to challenge the legality of a proceeding to remove the Justice from his post. 51. Based on the previous considerations, the IACHR concludes that the reported facts may constitute violations of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. At the same time, the Commission does not find that the petitioner has presented evidence that would tend to establish a violation of his right to privacy, his political rights or his right to equal protection of the law, as established, respectively, in Articles 11, 23(1)(c) and 24 of the Convention. 52. In light of the foregoing facts, the IACHR does not find that the petition is “manifestly groundless or obviously out of order,” and finds that, prima facie, the petitioner has met all the requirements of Articles 47(b) and 47(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights. V. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS 53. Considering that the alleged facts of this petition are similar to those of petition 969-03 presented by Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, who was removed from his post as Supreme Court Justice in Paraguay during the same impeachment trial and through the same Resolution, pursuant to Article 29(d) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission has decided to join this case to petition 969-03 and process them together during the merits stage. VI. CONCLUSIONS 54. The commission concludes that it is competent to hear this case and that the petition is admissible according to Article 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 55. Based on the arguments of fact and law presented above, and without prejudging as to the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, DECIDES: 1. To declare the present case admissible with regard to the alleged violations of the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 10