and for the time being, latinoamericanum130 — which permits ensuring a minimum standard of regional applicability of the American Convention in favor of human rights and dignity. 100. In the same way that the Inter-American Court analyzed the violations to the right to a hearing and some components of the right of defense, the Court could also have made a specific examination of alleged violations to other rights established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention expressly mentioned by the Inter-American Commission and alleged by the representatives of the victims, rather than evading their examination by considering that, since the Congress was not competent to terminate the judges, it was not necessary to make this analysis because the decision was “totally unacceptable.” 131 Precisely because it was a decision of the National Congress that was characterized as unacceptable, the ICourtHR should have ruled on the other arguments relating to the rights under Article 8(2) of the Pact of San José and, especially, when it had examined the right to a hearing and some components of the right of defense and declared that they had been violated. 101. Indeed, on the one hand, Congress was competent to conduct the impeachment proceedings; and, on the other, it should not be overlooked that, in other cases, even though the ICourtHR has declared a specific violation, this has not been an obstacle to consider it pertinent to establish other implications of the State’s international responsibility and, at times, to declare additional or complementary violations.132 This was justified in the instant case, taking into account the “abrupt” nature of the termination of the titular judges of the main high courts of Ecuador and the dramatic impairment of the institutional aspect of judicial independence that was declared in the Judgment; hence, I consider that the Inter-American Court should not have avoided responding to the said allegations regarding due process under the Convention in the impeachment proceedings against the judges. 102. The need for thoroughness in the arguments, for example on the different components of the victims’ right of defense in the impeachment proceedings, would have been particularly relevant, because it was highly probable that it would culminate in the autonomous declaration of the violation of the rights considered in themselves. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the right to due process of law is, in fact, constituted by a series of inseparable and essential elements, 133 so that it is not respected unless they are all satisfied, in an integral manner. Thus, the examination of the other judicial guarantees, which it was alleged had been violated, would eventually have established more robust standards of protection for judge, justices or magistrates, subjected to impeachment by Cf. von Bogdandy, Armin, Morales Antoniazzi, Mariela, and Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Eduardo (coords.), Ius Constitutionale Commune en Derechos Humanos en América Latina, Mexico, Porrúa-IMDPC-Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, 2013. 130 131 Para. 223 of the Judgment. In the Case of Kimel the ICourtHR included considerations of the proportionality of the restriction to the victim’s freedom of expression. Even though, based strictly on the analysis of legality the Inter-American Court declared the respective violation, it included an analysis of the other components of the considerations on proportionality. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 81 to 94. In addition, in the Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, even though the ICourtHR indicated the lack of competence of the military criminal jurisdiction to examine the facts, it analyzed how, during the intervention of this jurisdiction, the investigation was not conducted with due diligence. The Inter-American Court indicated that the “limited investigative measures, and also the speed with which they were carried out, reveal little or no interest of the military criminal jurisdiction in conducting a serious and exhaustive investigation into the events that had occurred.” It is worth emphasizing that the ICourtHR also examined the effectiveness of the intervention of other systems of justice, such as the disciplinary jurisdiction. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 192 to 204. 132 Cf. García Ramírez, Sergio, El debido proceso. Criterios de la jurisprudencia interamericana, Mexico, Porrúa, 2012, p. 23. 133 27