41 exercise of the jurisdictional function of the Constitutional Court; but, in its report, the Committee ignored this mandate and indicated that there were irregularities during the adoption of various jurisdictional acts of that Court, concluding that three of the justices “’usurped” functions of the full Constitutional Court, with the consent of the President of that collegiate body; b) following the statements made by Justices Acosta Sánchez and García Marcelo before the Investigation Committee, the three justices who are the alleged victims in this case were not summoned before that Committee again; therefore, the latter drew up its report, assuming that what the first two justices said was true, without offering the alleged victims the possibility of exercising their right to present evidence for the defense; c) on May 7, 1997, once the alleged victims had learned of the articles of impeachment against them, the Evaluation Sub-Committee granted them a period of 48 hours to exercise their defense, a period which, at the request of the justices, was extended until the following May 14, the date on which this Sub-Committee issued its report and forward it to the Permanent Committee recommending the impeachment proceeding (supra 56(21) and 56(22)); and d) the decision adopting the dismissal was not substantiated in any way. 81. This Court has recently indicated that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention presume that the victims should have extensive possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings54. In the case sub judice, the above-mentioned irregularities occurred (supra 80), and prevented the justices from having a proceeding that met the minimum guarantees of due process established in the Convention. Thus, in this case, the victims’ right to be heard by the organ that delivered the decision was limited and their right to take part in the proceeding was also restricted. 82. As for the modification in the purpose of the inquiry of the Investigation Committee, it not only contravened the express mandate and the prohibition to examine the jurisdictional actions of the Constitutional Court established by Congress, but also its action implied that the rules of internal procedure that guaranteed the alleged victims’ right to defense were infringed. On this point, Article 88(d)) of the rules of procedure of Congress establishes that “[t]hose who appear before Investigation Committees have the right to be informed previously about the matter that motivates their attendance. They may attend them with a [l]awyer”. Evidently, when the justices appeared before the Investigation Committee, their intervention related to the complaints made by Justice Revoredo and not to the alleged anomalies that occurred within the Constitutional Court when the decision and clarification on presidential re-election were adopted; thus the justices could not make their position known on that issue. 83. The foregoing resulted in the consequent restriction of the right of the justices to defend themselves by answering the allegations filed against them. On the one hand, the accused did not have a complete and timely knowledge of the charges filed against them and their access to the probative material was limited. The period granted for exercising their defense was extremely short, considering that, as all accused persons, they had the right to examine the case and the evidence55. Moreover, the accused justices were not allowed to cross-question the 54 Cf. This principle in Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 129. 55 Cf. This principle in Paniagua Morales et al. case , supra note 46, para. 152.