45 142. From the facts set out in this section, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to a trial by a competent, independent and impartial authority, established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the Convention and to the detriment of Judges Guillermo López Lone, Ramón Barrios and Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and Magistrate Tirza Flores Lanza. 2. The right to prepare an adequate defense and the obligation to state grounds 143. The Inter-American Court has written that under Article 8 of the Convention, the right to an adequate defense is part of due process and for that right to be observed, a defendant must be able to exercise his rights and defend his interests effectively and in full procedural equality with other defendants 229 and must be fully informed of the charges against him. 230 In the specific case of disciplinary proceedings against judges, and in keeping with the Basic Principles, the Inter-American Court has written that the authority conducting the disciplinary proceeding must conduct itself according to the procedure established for the purpose and allow the accused to exercise his or her right of defense.231 144. As for the content of this right, in the case of Olújic v. Croatia the European Court has written that “the judge whose office is at stake must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case - including his or her evidence - under conditions that do not place him or her at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the authorities bringing those proceedings against a judge.” 232 Likewise, in the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the Inter-American Court held that some of the factors that need to be examined to determine whether dismissed judges have been given an opportunity to defend themselves include the question of whether they had complete and timely knowledge of the charges filed against them, whether they had proper access to the probative material, whether the period granted for exercising their defense was adequate –since as accused persons they have the right to examine the case and evidence- and the question of whether they were allowed to cross-examine the witnesses whose testimony was the basis of the accusation.233 The Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa provide that judicial officials facing disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be entitled to guarantees of a fair hearing including the right to be represented by a legal representative of their choice.234 Summarizing, as the 229 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, paragraph 117. 230 See Section VI. Accountability Mechanisms, in the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government. Parliamentary Supremacy and Judicial Independence, adopted on June 19, 1998, at a meeting of representatives of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association, the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association and the Commonwealth Legal Education Association. 231 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraphs 73 and 74. Also the Commission has established that “the guarantees that must be respected and fulfilled to ensure a suitable defense include those calling for intervention by a competent, independent and impartial judicial body to determine the claim’s legality”. Report No. 30/97, Case 10.087 (Merits), Gustavo Carranza, Argentina, September 30, 1997. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/97eng/Argentina10087.htm 81-83. 232 Cf. ECHR, Olújic v. Croatia, judgment of 5 February 2009 (Sect.1) (Application no. 22330/05). §78 233 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paragraphs