82. This Court agrees with what the Commission stated when it pointed out that the possibility of the extension was envisaged in law and that Mr. Rico had not clearly explained to what extent this fact adversely affected his right of defense. On the other hand, with regard to the denial of certain evidence by the Impeachment Jury, this Court agrees with the Commission when it states that the judicial decision must be based on grounds that are "manifestly unreasonable or incompatible with the applicable standards" in order to constitute a violation of judicial guarantees, which are not verified in the instant case. In this regard, the Court notes that the Impeachment Jury stated that it had proceeded to admit "all the testimonial statements that met the legal requirements set forth in Article 25 of the Procedural Law". It added that those that "did not have an adequate legal framework" or that were "manifestly inappropriate"57 were dismissed. 83. Consequently, this Court finds that the State is not responsible for a violation of Mr. Rico's due process rights and, in particular, to his right of defense, due to the extension of the procedural time limit and the partial inadmissibility of the testimonial evidence that he submitted at trial. 84. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to appeal the decision to a higher court, this Court refers to the analysis of the allegations related to the right to judicial protection in the framework of which the Federal extraordinary appeal and motion for reconsideration filed by Mr. Rico to challenge the decision of the Impeachment Jury will be analyzed. B.5. Conclusion 85. In accordance with the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the State is not responsible for a violation of Mr. Rico’s judicial guarantees contained in Article 8 of the American Convention. VII. 2. THE RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF MR. RICO A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 86. The Commission alleged that after the judgment was issued in which Mr. Rico was dismissed and declared ineligible for service in the judiciary, he filed an application for nullity, a REF, and a motion for reconsideration. He argued that in none of the appeals filed, the judicial bodies carried out a substantive analysis on the existence or not of violations to due process in the sanctioning procedure. He affirmed that the debate was focused on the possibility or not of filing an appeal, indicating that the REF was not well grounded. He also argued that according to SCJN jurisprudence, the decisions of the Impeachment Juries may be appealed, but that in the present case it was not possible to do so because no violations of due process were proven. He pointed out that the latter decision rejected the admissibility of an appeal because violations of due process were not proven, when this was precisely the substantive matter that was intended to be evaluated through the aforementioned appeal. By virtue of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concluded that the State violated the right to judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Rico. The representatives shared these arguments. 87. In this regard, the State argued that the extraordinary federal appeal filed in the instant case was the appropriate and effective remedy in the domestic sphere to remedy any due process violations that Mr. Rico may have suffered in the proceedings before the Impeachment Decision of June 1, 2000 of the Jury of Impeachment of Magistrates and Officials of the Province of Buenos Aires (evidence file, folio 6). 57 -21-