27. In the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the ICourtHR examined the congressional resolution of May 28, 1997, removing some of the judges of the country’s Constitutional Court for presumed irregularities in the processing of the clarification of a judgment that declared the inapplicability of Law No. 26,657. In that case, the InterAmerican Court determined that the guarantees established in both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 of the American Convention were applicable in civil, labor, fiscal or any other matter, as well as criminal matters, so that due process of law was required.33 28. In addition, it indicated that any authority, whether administrative, legislative or judicial that, by means of its decisions, determines rights and obligations of the individual, is obliged to comply with due process. 34 Likewise, it clarified that one of the main purposes of the separation of powers is the guarantee of judicial independence, and to this end, rigorous procedures of different kinds have been conceived for both the appointment and the removal of judges.35 The authority that executes this procedure must be impartial and allow the exercise of the right of defense. 36 29. The Court also stipulated that the independence of any judge supposes that there is an adequate appointment procedure, with an established term of office, and a guarantee against external pressure.37 30. Regarding impeachment, in which the sanction of dismissal is applied, 38 it established that “any person subject to a trial of any nature before an organ of the State must be guaranteed that the said organ is competent, independent and impartial, and acts in accordance with the legally established procedure to hear and decide the case submitted to it.”39 And, of special importance for the instant case, it considered: 69. Although Article 8 of the American Convention is entitled “Judicial Guarantees” [in the Spanish version - “Right to a Fair Trial” in the English version], its application is not strictly limited to judicial remedies, “but rather the procedural requirements that should be observed in order to be able to speak of effective and appropriate judicial guarantees” so that a person may defend himself adequately in the face of any kind of act of the State that affects his rights. 70. The Court has already established that, although this article does not establish minimum guarantees in matters relating to the determination of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature, the full range of minimum guarantees stipulated in the second paragraph of this article are also applicable in those areas and, therefore, in this type of matter, the individual also has the overall right to the due process applicable in criminal matters40 (underlining added).41 Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C, No. 71, para. 70. 33 34 Ibidem, para. 71. 35 Ibidem, para. 73. 36 Ibidem, para. 74. 37 Ibidem, para. 75. 38 Ibidem, paras. 67 and 68. 39 Ibidem, para. 77. Cf. Case of Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 149. 40 Para. 167 of the judgment that prompts this opinion, in relation to the minimum guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, also refers to the precedent of the Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 125 to 129. 41 8