42 witnesses whose testimonies formed the basis on which the members of Congress initiated the impeachment proceeding that ended with the consequent dismissal56. 84. According to the criteria that this Court has established, it is evident that the impeachment proceeding to which the dismissed justices were submitted did not ensure them guarantees of due legal process and did not comply with the requirement of the impartiality of the judge. Moreover, the Court observes that, in the context of this specific case, the Legislature did not have the necessary conditions of independence and impartiality to conduct the impeachment proceeding against the three justices of the Constitutional Court. 85. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the State violated the right to a fair trial embodied in Article 8 of the American Convention, with regard to Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 25 (JUDICIAL PROTECTION) The Commission’s arguments 86. With regard to Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) The three justices of the Constitutional Court who were dismissed did not have access to a “simple and prompt recourse” which would have protected them from the decision of the Congress of the Republic ordering their dismissal, since it took three months to process the applications for amparo that they filed; this did not respect the provisions of Peruvian legislation on time limits and placed them in a situation of defenselessness; and b) The Constitutional Court’s decision to classify the dismissal procedure of the three justices as a “non-actionable” act, because it was a political matter, prevented a jurisdictional organ from reviewing the dismissal procedure and its legality, which meant the denial of the right to effective judicial protection established in Article 25 of the Convention. As we can infer from the facts, the dismissed justices filed applications for amparo against Legislative Resolutions Nos. 002-97-CR, 003-97-CR and 004-97-CR, which were rejected by the instances established to that end. They also filed an appeal after execution of judgment before the Constitutional Court, which was also rejected. The State’s arguments 87. Peru did not submit any arguments on this matter, since it did not appear before the Court in the case sub judice (supra 58-62). 56 Cf. This principle in Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 154; Eur. Court H. R., case of Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo, decision of December 6, 1998, Series A no. 146, para. 78; and Eur. Court H. R., case of Bönishc judgment of May 6th. 1985, Series A no. 92, para. 32.