102. Regarding the principle of legality, although the Court considers it to be valid in disciplinary matters, its scope will depend to a great extent on the matter regulated. The precision of a disciplinary norm may be different from that required by the principle of legality in criminal matters, owing to the nature of the disputes that each of them is designed to resolve.61 103. Similarly, this Court expressed in the case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela that the problems regarding uncertainty do not generate, per se, a violation of the Convention, namely, that the fact that a regulation grants some form of discretion is not inconsistent with the degree of foreseeability that the regulation should bear, provided that the scope of discretion and the manner in which it should be exercised is indicated with sufficient clarity so as to provide adequate protection from arbitrary interference.62 104. In the instant case, the Court finds that Mr. Rico was punished for "incurring in the grounds set forth in Article 21, paragraphs e), f) and k) of Law 8085". As noted above (supra para. 28), these three grounds, which were already established prior to the occurrence of the facts that were attributed to Mr. Rico, refer to: "(e) reiterated incompetence or negligence demonstrated in the exercise of official duties"; "(f) reiterated failure to perform the official duties inherent to the post", and (k) reiterated allowance of procedural deadlines to lapse without pronouncing on the matters submitted for a decision or an opinion". The legality of each disciplinary grounds for which Mr. Rico was sanctioned will be analyzed below. a. Cause contained in Article 21(f), reiterated failure to perform the official duties inherent to the post 105. This Court notes that the Impeachment Jury found that the cause of reiterated failure to perform official duties inherent to the post had been established (Article 21(f)) because it was deemed proven that Mr. Rico: a) refused to sign an agreement formalizing the change of Presidency of the Tribunal he was part of, qualifying his colleagues as "de facto President and de facto Vice-President"; b) obstructed the holding of hearings because he had the habit of reading the files minutes before the celebration of each act; c) ordered all the files in which a specific lawyer intervened to be classified as reserved. He also ordered that the consultation of the casefiles should be carried out under strict control, until such time as a psychiatrist could issue an opinion on the lawyer's mental health; d) he refused to swear a pledge of allegiance to the flag of the Province of Buenos Aires; e) he refused to cast his vote in cases where there was a legal obligation to do so. In this regard, it was noted that in several cases he refused to sign the judgments, arguing in some occasions that the intervention of his colleagues had been adulterated, and in another case that the settlement amounts approved by the parties were meager, refusing, however, to issue a dissenting opinion; f) he treated Court employees and litigants inappropriately; and g) he used an official license plate of the Judicial Branch without authorization. It was also noted that there were complaints from professionals and parties that the schedules of the cases had been altered and that this implied a lack of consideration towards them, and that there was documentary proof of misconduct, as evidenced by previous disciplinary proceedings.63 106. On this ground, the Court notes that several of the conducts that were attributed to Mr. Rico and considered proven, refer to non-compliance with activities that constitute functions inherent to the work of a judge. In the opinion of this Court, it is reasonable to hold that Mr. Cf. Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 89, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 146. 62 Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 202. 63 Cf. Votes of the Impeachment Jury of June 15, 2000 (evidence file, folios 9 to 173). 61 -25-