48 provision for having any disciplinary or administrative decision that has an impact on the status of judges reviewed by an independent judicial body.”242 The European Charter on the Statute for Judges makes specific reference to disciplinary proceedings involving judges, to the effect that “[t]he decision […] pronouncing a sanction […] is open to an appeal to a higher judicial authority.”243 The Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa provide that in disciplinary proceedings judges “shall be entitled to […] an independent review of decisions of disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings.”244 154. In the Inter-American System, the American Convention provides that States must offer an adequate and effective recourse to all persons subject to their jurisdiction, for protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights. This right is protected under Article 25 of the Convention and “is one of the fundamental pillars” of States in a democratic society.245 As for the scope of the right to judicial protection, both the Commission and the Court have reiterated that judicial protection applies not just to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to the rights recognized by the Constitution or law of the State concerned.246 The Court has written that “for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.”247 For its part, under Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, the right to appeal a ruling is part of due process of law.248 The Commission notes that “the right to appeal a judgment is an essential guarantee that must be respected as part of due process of law, so that a party may turn to a higher court for revision of a judgment that was unfavorable to that party’s interests.” 249 242 United Nations. Human Rights Council. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, Mission to Mexico, A/HRC/17/30/Add.3, April 18, 2011, paragraph 14. See also, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, Communications to and from governments, A/HRC/17/30/Add.1, May 19, 2011, Bolivia, paragraph 120 [not in English]. 243 European Charter on the Statute for Judges and Explanatory Memorandum (DAJ/DOC)98) prepared at the first multilateral meeting in Strasbourg devoted to the Status of Judges in Europe, organized by the Council of European and Held from July 8 to 10, 1998. 244 Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, adopted as part of the Report on Activities of the African Commission at the Second Summit and Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union, held in Maputo, July 4 to 12, 2003. See Principle A, paragraph 4(q) and (r). 245 I/A Court H.R. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paragraph 82; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paragraph 131, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 183, paragraph 78. 246 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, paragraph 122; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, paragraph 128; and Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, paragraph 167. See also, IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Union of Employees, Professionals, and Technicians of the Lima Water and Sewerage Service Company v. Peru. January 16, 2010. Paragraph 57. 247 I/A Court H.R. OC-9/87. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), paragraph 24; and I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paragraph 136. 248 I/A Court H.R. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004, paragraph 158 249 I/A Court H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 2 July de 2004. Series C No. 107, Paragraph 158, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, paragraph 97.