based on the rulings they had delivered within the framework of the competence of the Constitutional Tribunal as an organ for the control of constitutionality, which was expressly prohibited by domestic law,187 and meant that the judges were sanctioned for actions that were not expressly indicated by law.188 140. Consequently, I consider that the Inter-American Court should have declared the State responsible for the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention, because it failed to respect the principle of legality in the impeachment proceedings conducted against the victims who were members of the Constitutional Tribunal. And, evidently, this constituted an additional factor for finding that the political authorities had clearly violated the institutional aspect of judicial independence in the instant case. Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 187 Art. 9 of the 1997 Law on Constitutional Control. It should not be overlooked that, according to the case law of the ICourtHR, the principle of legality established in Article 9 of the American Convention is not only applicable in criminal matters, but also in relation to administrative sanctions. Cf. supra paras. 112 to 119 of this opinion, and especially, Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C, No. 72, para. 106; see also, Ruiz Robledo, Agustín, El derecho fundamental a la legalidad punitiva, Valencia, Tirant Lo Blanch, 2004. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has maintained that “the notion of “penalty” in Article 7 § 1 of the Convention, like those of “civil rights and obligations” and “criminal charge” in Article 6 § 1, has an autonomous meaning […]. To render the protection offered by Article 7 effective, the Court must remain free to go behind appearances and assess for itself whether a particular measure amounts in substance to a “penalty” within the meaning of this provision” (Cf. ECHR, Case of Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2), Judgement of 17 September 2009, No. 10249/03, para. 96; Case of Welch v. the United Kingdom, Judgement of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, para. 27). 188 41