for implementing limitations to power in order to avoid its abuse.101 But, if this is the purpose of impeachment, the very least that can be required of the body conducting it is precisely that its implementation does not convert it into a weapon against the constitutional State itself, which would occur if it was the Legislature that exceeded its powers of prosecution and incurred in an abuse of power against those who it was prosecuting. As one author has indicated, “the dangerous aspect of the matter is that impeachment is very useful for carrying out dismissals in order to remove from the chambers all the minority legislators who do not obey the orders of the majority group or alliance. But also, owing to the way in which it is conceived, it leaves in the hands of those who have a sufficient majority in the legislative organs the possibility of easily annulling the other public organs, bringing them to a halt, dominating them and, finally, ending their independence”102 (italics added). 78. Although the organ with competence to hear and decide an impeachment proceeding is a political organ (in those countries where the Legislature has this power), the whole process must be conducted with legal meticulousness, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and the legal norms that regulate it,103 as well as with the relevant standards established in the Convention. Impeachment involves a trial similar to a judicial proceeding, in the sense that the legislative chamber that is conducting the hearing in some way becomes a professional judge. It involves legal control insofar as it is regulated by law, and also jurisdictional control because it cannot be understood to be exempt of the formal and substantial element of due process. Thus, González Oropeza had defined impeachment as the “proceeding to establish the individual or official responsibility of a public servant [that] entails the practical exercise of a jurisdictional function by an organ with political functions, but respecting the essential formalities of a jurisdictional proceeding.” 104 79. Consequently, in reality, impeachment involves mixed control: “political control” only as regards the institutional status of the organ conducting it, the offenses and the sanctions to be imposed; “legal control” because the monitoring action is subject to the law, and it is jurisdictional as regards the nature of the function and the human rights of due process of those who are tried. If those who are put on trial are members of the State’s Judiciary – or of any of the high jurisdictional organs – there are also other significant elements to consider, such as the principles of the separation of powers and, as I have expounded above, the institutional aspect of the independence of judges, which entail important practical consequences. 80. Indeed, it is only by acknowledging the “jurisdictional nature” of the function of Congress in relation to impeachment that it is possible to ensure judicial independence. 105 Hence, if we wish to protect judicial independence we must consider that impeachment is an exceptional means to remove judges, and not a mechanism at the service of the parliamentary majorities to try and control the Judiciary. In other words, if it is understood 101 Cf. Aragón, Manuel, op. cit., pp. 121-122. Valdés S., Clemente, El juicio político. La impunidad, los encubrimientos y otras formas de opresión, México, Ediciones Coyoacán, 2000, p. 190. 102 Cf. Carpizo, Jorge, “Algunas garantías procesal-constitucionales en México”, in the author’s book, Temas constitucionales, 2ª ed., Mexico, Porrúa/UNAM, 2003, pp. 229-230. 103 104 González Oropeza, Manuel, “Juicio político”, op. cit., p. 335. On this point expert witness Despouy indicated that, in an impeachment proceeding, “the guarantees of due process of law” must be respected and “especially, in the case of judges of the Supreme Courts of Justice and also, as in this case, the members of the Constitutional Tribunal” (Statement during the public hearing on March 18, 2013). 105 20