could entail with the principle of judicial independence. 94. For example, in the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the Court included specific considerations that it ratifies in this judgment. Thus, the Court specified the content of impeachment under the rule of law and indicated that “it is a means of controlling senior officials of both the Executive and other State organs exercised by the Legislature” and that its purpose is “that an organ that represents the people may examine and take decisions on the actions of senior officials.”97 95. Similarly, both in the above case, and in the cases of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, and Rico v. Argentina, the Inter-American Court asserted that the guarantees of due process established in the American Convention are applicable in the substantiation of impeachment proceedings.98 In this regard, Article 8 of the Convention establishes the guidelines for due process of law; these refer to a series of requirements that must be met by the procedural bodies to ensure that individuals are able to defend their rights adequately in relation to any act of the State that could affect those rights. 99 The Court has indicated in its consistent case law that any public authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial, whose decisions may affect the rights of the individual is required to adopt those decisions fully respecting the guarantees of due process of law, 100 and that although non-judicial authorities are not required to ensure the guarantees inherent in a jurisdictional organ, they must comply with those that are aimed at ensuring that the decision is not arbitrary. 101 96. In the case of Rico v. Argentina, the Court indicated that impeachments proceedings that could eventually result in the removal of judicial officials “are not contrary to the Convention per se, provided they comply with the guarantees of Article 8 and that rules exist that limit the discretionality of the adjudicator [in reference to the body that processes and decides the impeachment proceeding] in order to protect the guarantee of independence.”102 97. Based on the foregoing, it should be pointed out, first, that the requirement to observe the guarantees of due process during impeachment proceedings against a judge, 103 requires ensuring that the competences of the authorities who intervene in its processing and decision “are not exercised subjectively or based on political discretionality,”104 because this could of the Electoral Contentious Court, article 131); (iii) Republic of Guatemala; (iv) Republic of Panama (article 154 of the Constitution establishes the competence of the Legislature to try judicial authorities in criminal cases and, consequently, if it finds them guilty, to apply the sanctions established in the Criminal Code), and (v) Republic of Suriname (the Constitution establishes the power of the President of the High Court of Justice to suspend judicial authorities in certain circumstances, article 143). 97 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 63, and Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 56. 98 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 77; Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 158; Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, supra, para. 171, and Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 56. 99 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 69; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 88, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 66. 100 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra, para. 71, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 88. 101 Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 119, and Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 50. 102 Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 57. 103 The expert opinions of Jorge Alejandro Amaya and José Ramón Cossío Díaz, provided during the public hearing before this Court, as well as the written opinion of Roberto P. Saba all agree in affirming that the guarantees of due process must be observed in impeachment proceedings. Cf. Expert opinion signed by Roberto P. Saba (evidence file, volume VI, affidavits, folio 13282). 104 Cf. Case of Rico v. Argentina, supra, para. 66. 26