35 therefore, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Convention, Peru’s obligation to comply with this Court’s judgment in this case is in force. * * * 63. This Court also considers that it is appropriate to refer to the figure of the impeachment proceeding, because of its application in this case and the requirements established in the American Convention concerning the fundamental rights of the alleged victims in the case. Under the rule of law, the impeachment proceeding is a means of controlling senior officials of both the Executive and other State organs exercised by the Legislature. However, this control does not mean that the organ being controlled – in this case the Constitutional Court – is subordinate to the controlling organ – in this case the Legislature; but rather that the intention of the latter is that an organ that represents the people may examine and take decisions on the actions of senior officials. X VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL) The Commission’s arguments 64. With regard to Article 8 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a. Constitutional Court justices in Latin American countries must be guaranteed independence, autonomy and impartiality. Peru’s legal system establishes that the Constitutional Court justices, as judges who control the constitutionality of the laws and, in final instance, examine the actions to guarantee or protect fundamental rights, must enjoy independence, autonomy and impartiality in the exercise of their functions; b. In the instant case, the independence of the judges must be examined in relation to the Constitutional Court’s possibility of delivering judgments contrary to the Executive and the Legislature, and also the role that Congress should play when it acts as judge in a proceeding to dismiss justices. Any act of the State that affects this independence and autonomy is contrary to Article 8 of the Convention; c. Since the irremovability of judges is implicitly guaranteed in Article 8(1) of the Convention, should a judge have to be removed, the decision must be taken following the procedure established in the Constitution. In addition to avoiding arbitrariness, this guarantees the independence of the judges before the other powers of the State and when elections result in political changes. In the instant case, there was “[a] scheme of the three public powers”, because the initiative to adopt Law No. 26,657, which establishes the possibility of the Executive remaining in power through the figure of re-election, was supported by the Legislature, when the party in