40 appointment process51, a fixed term in the position52 and a guarantee against external pressures53. 76. In this respect, Articles 93 and 201 of Peru’s current Constitution (supra 42)(C)(b) and, particularly, Article 13 of the Constitutional Court’s statute, establish that the members of this Court “are not subject to mandatory injunctions, nor do they receive instructions from any authority. They enjoy inviolability. They do not have to respond for votes or opinions issued in the exercise of their responsibilities. They also enjoy immunity.” 77. Regarding the exercise of the authority of Congress to conduct impeachment proceedings, which engages the responsibility of a public official, the Court believes that it should be recalled that any person subject to a proceeding of any nature before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that this organ is competent, independent and impartial and that it acts in accordance with the procedure established by law for hearing and deciding the case submitted to it. 78. In the instant case, it has been proved that during the dismissal procedure conducted by the Congress of Peru the following situations, among others, occurred: a) 40 members of Congress sent a letter to the Constitutional Court requesting it to make a pronouncement on whether Law No. 26,657 on presidential re-election, was unconstitutional; b) some of the members of Congress who sent this letter then took part in the various committees and sub-committees that were appointed in the proceeding we are examining; c) the “second judgment” delivered by Justices García Marcelo and Acosta Sánchez, on January 16, 1997, was not examined, although it was published irregularly as a separate pronouncement issued by the Court: and d) despite the express prohibition established in Article 88 j) of the rules of procedure of Congress, some members of the Permanent Commission participated in the vote on the constitutional dismissal. Consequently, this Court concludes that, during the impeachment proceeding, Congress did not ensure the dismissed justices the guarantee of impartiality required by Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 79. The Peruvian Constitution establishes the general right to defense in its Article 2(23) and, specifically, in the case of the dismissal of a justice, its Article 100(2) indicates that “the accused has the right, during this process, to defend himself with the assistance of a lawyer before the Permanent Commission and before the full Congress.” 80. As has been shown, the following actions occurred in the procedure to dismiss the alleged victims: a) the Investigation Committee was appointed by the full Congress to clarify Delia Revoredo Marsano’s complaint concerning a possible removal of documents belonging both to her and to the Court, which was taking place within the Court, and about threats that she had experienced. The Committee was given the express mandate that it could not examine any matter related to the 51 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Langborger case, decision of 27 January 1989, Series A no. 155, para. 32; and Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell, supra note 47, para. 78. 52 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Langborger case, supra note 51, para. 32; Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell, supra note 47, para. 78; and Eur. Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 198I, Series A no. 43, para. 55. 53 Cf. Eur. Court H.R., Langborger case, supra note 51, para. 32; Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell, supra note 47, para. 78; and Eur. Court H.R., Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53, para. 27.