- 85 corresponding to each type of offense.432 In this way, in principle, the disciplinary regime applicable to the presumed victims established the possibility of dismissal for the perpetration of serious offenses or repetition of less serious ones, in addition to the grounds for dismissal expressly established in article 64 of the Judicial Service Act (supra para. 74).433 Also, with regard to the sanction of dismissal, both the Act and its Regulations established that this was only possible “on the grounds and according to the procedure established” in the said Act.434 262. However, the Court notes that article 64(a) of the Act established among the grounds for dismissal that: Judicial officials may be dismissed from office on any of the following grounds: (a) noncompliance with or serious or reiterated violation of any of the obligations, incompatibilities and conducts established in Chapters X and XI of this Act.435 263. Thus, although, in principle, the Act and its Regulations established a progressive system of sanctions, under which dismissal was applied for serious offenses, article 64(a) of the Act extended this sanction to offenses classified as minor or less serious in case of non-compliance with or serious or reiterated violation of certain obligations. This Court underlines that all the presumed victims in this case were dismissed by the Supreme Court based on these grounds, among numerous other norms (supra paras. 95, 115, 132 and 145). 264. The Court considers that this regulatory framework affected the predictability of the sanction because it permitted the dismissal of a judge based on non-compliance with any of the obligations or incompatibilities of his office when the court understood that it was serious non-compliance; thus it granted excessive discretionary power to the body responsible for applying the sanction. This Court finds that some degree of imprecision does not result, per se, in a violation of the Convention; in other words, the fact that a law grants some discretionary power is not incompatible with the degree of predictability required, provided that the scope of the discretion and the way in which it should be exercised are indicated with sufficient clarity in order to provide adequate protection against arbitrary interference.436 Consequently, the Court considers that the disciplinary norms applicable to the cases of the presumed victims granted excessive discretionary powers to the court in the establishment of the sanction of dismissal. 432 The Regulations classify offenses as minor, less serious and serious, while the Act only refers to minor or serious offenses. Cf. Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, articles 175, 177 and 178 (evidence file, folio 198), and Judicial Service Act, article 59 (evidence file, folio 4166). 433 Article 64 of the Judicial Service Act established the causes for “dismissal” (evidence file, folios 4166 and 4167). According to article 186 of the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act “[b]y Dismissal Regime shall be understood the body of norms that regulate the removal or dismissal of judicial officials from regular service for justifiable causes.” Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, article 186 (evidence file, folio 200). 434 Judicial Service Act, articles 5(3), 64, 65 and 66 (evidence file, folios 4166 to 4168), and Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act, articles 180, 186, 187, 188 and 189 (evidence file, folios 199 to 201). 435 In this regard, the Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act establish that: “Article 175. The following shall be considered minor offenses: (a) Absenting oneself from one’s post, without authorization, in regulatory working hours; (b) Mistreatment, by word or deed, of subordinate employees; (c) Involuntary errors in performing one’s work; (ch) Lack of attention to personal appearance and tidiness in the workplace. Article 176. Minor offenses shall merit a verbal reprimand. If the official commits a second minor offense, a written reprimand shall be applied as a sanction. Article 177. The offenses indicated in Article 172 of these Regulations shall be considered less serious offenses [equivalent to the offenses established in article 53 of the Judicial Service Act and corresponding to the acts that “are inimical to the dignity of the administration of justice”] and shall be sanctioned with a fine of no less than five days or more than 30 days salary. Article 178. Repetition of a less serious offense shall constitute a serious offense and shall be sanctioned with suspension from office; the same sanction shall be applied to serious offenses, without exceeding three months. Article 179. The offenses established in article 173 of these Regulations shall constitute serious offenses [equivalent to the offenses established in article 54 of the Judicial Service Act and corresponding to the acts contrary to the effectiveness of the administration of justice”], without prejudice to the provisions relating to the Dismissal Regime indicated in article 187 hereof [equivalent to article 64 of the Judicial Service Act on the grounds for dismissal].” Regulations governing the Judicial Service Act (evidence file, folios 198 and 199). 436 Cf. Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra, para. 202.