were not subject to impeachment and, consequently, had not been dismissed. 139. In the Court’s opinion, these arguments do not allow it to make the requested analysis because no specific arguments were submitted that would allow it to assess how the said discrimination had occurred. Furthermore, the Court was not provided with precise information on the composition of the Supreme Court of Justice when each ruling included in the articles of impeachment drawn up by the Chamber of Deputies against the presumed victims was issued; the position of each justice when, one by one, those rulings were issued and, if applicable, the position assumed by the two chambers of the Legislature in relation to those circumstances. 140. The representatives added that the said discrimination had also occurred due to Senate Resolution No. 122, because this prohibited them from appealing against the decision issued as a result of the impeachment proceedings, and prevented them from exercising “a right of everyone in the State’s territory.” This argument does not enable the Court to examine the alleged violation of Article 24 of the Convention because, technically, it relates to the failure to respect procedural guarantees during the impeachment proceedings. In any case, as previously indicated (supra para. 134), in light of the fact that the presumed victims filed judicial actions to contest the proceedings and the final decision, and that their claims were heard and decided in court, the pertinent analysis will be made in relation to the violation of the right to judicial protection. Consequently, the Court will not make the requested analysis. B.3.4. General conclusion 141. Because it failed to respect the necessary guarantees to safeguard judicial independence in the impeachment proceedings and the consequent decision to remove Messrs. Ríos Ávalos and Fernández Gadea from their functions as justices of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Paraguayan State is responsible for the violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of these persons. VII.2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE RIGHTS 148 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 142. The Commission alleged that it took more than six years for the judicial actions filed by the presumed victims to protect their rights to be decided without any justification being provided for this delay. It indicated that the 2009 judgments in favor of the presumed victims were invalidated by the Supreme Court of Justice after Congress had “vigorously” repudiated those judgments, which reveals that the right to an effective judicial remedy was not ensured and that the Judiciary had been subject to external pressures. Added to this, the appeal for clarification filed by Mr. Fernández Gadea has not yet been decided. 143. The representatives argued that the actions of unconstitutionality that were filed “suffer[ed] from unjustified delay.” They pointed out that the appeal for clarification filed by Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos was decided after almost 10 years, while the one filed by Carlos Fernández Gadea remains pending. They added that an “administrative ruling” by six justices who were not part of the case, all of them disqualified, could not annul Judgments Nos. 951 and 952, added to which, as already indicated, in 2019, one of the appeals for clarification that had been filed was decided; therefore, the 2009 judgment “was fully valid, because […] 148 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument. 37