98. In accordance with the foregoing, this Court understands that, although Mr. Rico alleged in his brief of September 22, 2000 through which he filed a REF, that the decision of the Impeachment Jury had violated his right of defense protected by Article 18 of the National Constitution, the two courts concluded that he did not substantiate or prove the reasons why this had occurred, and merely stated his disagreement with some aspects of the judgment against him. 99. Therefore, this Court considers that it cannot rule on the effectiveness of the REF and the motion for reconsideration filed against the judgment of the Impeachment Jury, since those appeals were declared inadmissible by the SCJBA and the CSJN. It is the opinion of this Court that the conclusions reached by these two national courts deciding that the appeals were inadmissible are not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable and, therefore, contrary to the American Convention. Consequently, this Court considers that the State is not responsible for a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Rico. VII.3. PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY AND Mr. RICO’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT A. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 100. The Commission observed that the grounds for which the alleged victim was accused and subsequently dismissed are generic in nature, without it being possible to clearly establish in some of them the specific acts that constitute misconduct. It added that such is the case of grounds e) and f) relating to "incompetence" and "negligence", as well as the failure to comply with the duties "inherent to the position". The IACHR considered that the formulation of such grounds leaves an excessive margin of discretion for the sanctioning authority to establish the specific conducts that fit such generic formulations, opening the space for the inclusion of subjective appraisals. It concluded that this situation violates the principle of legality, which should be strengthened in punitive proceedings against judges. On the other hand, the Commission affirmed that it was established that Mr. Rico was removed from office in an arbitrary proceeding in which various violations of due process and the principle of legality were committed. Therefore, the State also violated Article 23(1)(c) of the Convention, to his detriment. The representatives agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission. 101. The State pointed out that Mr. Rico was dismissed because the Impeachment Jury concluded that he incurred in the grounds for dismissal set forth in Article 21 paragraphs e), f) and k) of Law 8085 and considered that the aforementioned legal provisions do not contravene the principle of legality according to the standards of the Court. The State added that each ground is provided for in a law enacted by the Congress of the Province of Buenos Aires, prior to the time of the facts. These grounds contain objective criteria that allow the conduct itself to be adjusted, and that in turn limit the discretion in the exercise of disciplinary powers. Regarding the right to participate in government, the State argued that the violation of this right was not substantiated in an autonomous manner, considering it a consequence of the alleged arbitrary dismissal, for which reason Argentina referred to the arguments submitted in this regard in the relevant sections. B. Considerations of the Court B.1. Principle of legality -24-