36 power was able to adopt the law and the decision to remove the justices; and then the Judiciary endorsed that decision when it rejected the petitions for amparo; d. The impeachment proceeding contained in Peru’s Constitution may not be used to control the exercise of the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction or to put pressure on its justices, because that would constitute unlawful interference in the function of the judges – which is what effectively occurred – and would impair the democratic system of Government. The procedure by which Congress dismisses a justice should be of an exceptional nature, possess the due judicial guarantees and be impartial. In this case, Congress dismissed the Constitutional Court justices, using an impeachment proceeding, but following a procedure that differed from the one established in the constitutional legislation, and violated their right to be judged by a competent, independent, impartial and previously established judge, as required by the Convention; e. The reason for the dismissal of the justices was the alleged irregularity in processing the requested clarification of the judgment that declared Law No. 26,657 non-applicable, based on the argument that it was an act that should have be heard by the full Constitutional Court. This decision was taken both by the Investigation Committee and by the Impeachment SubCommittee, despite the existence of an express mandate that prevented control or review of the Constitutional Court’s jurisdictional decisions. Consequently, those committees committed abuse and misuse of power, and violated the principle of the independence and autonomy of the Constitutional Court embodied in the Convention and Peru’s Constitution; f. Congress infringed criteria on “subjective impartiality” (such as those maintained in jurisprudence under the European Convention on Human Rights), because various elements reflected the fact that the majority in Congress had already formed an opinion on the case. For example, in the letter of January 14, 1997, 40 members of congress, among them several who later became members of the investigation and impeachment committees, attempted to prevent the adoption of the decision that declared Law No. 26,657 non-applicable; in its decision, the Evaluation SubCommittee did not take into consideration the official record of March 14, 1997, in which the justices were expressly authorized by the Constitutional Court to deliver the clarification judgment; and Justices Acosta Sánchez and García Marcelo were not charged with violating the Constitution, as a result of the second “judgment” on the constitutionality of Law No. 26,657 that they drew up and published; g. The procedure followed by the congressional Investigation Committee infringed due process because this Committee was created to examine facts denounced by Justice Revoredo concerning the removal of the Constitutional Court’s documents and not to examine the jurisdictional acts of this Court; h. The Constitution of Peru and the rules of procedure of Congress establish the rules of due process for handling an impeachment proceeding; therefore, in accordance with Article 29 of the American Convention, these rules form part of the series of rights that the victims enjoyed. In this case, the following guarantees of due process were violated: prior notification of