of power” and the arbitrary nature of the sanction imposed on the members of the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador who were removed from office and, subsequently, subjected to impeachment proceedings, which culminated in the admissibility of the motion of censure that resulted in the “immediate dismissal” under domestic law; impeachment proceedings regarding which, in the Judgment, the members of the Inter-American Court unanimously declared that a series of human rights had been violated, which constitute treaty-based due process and judicial protection established Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(4) and 25(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José. 5. Indeed, as was clearly studied in the Judgment “dismissal cannot be an arbitrary measure,”5 and “the purpose of an impeachment proceeding by the National Congress could not be the dismissal of a member of the Constitutional Tribunal based on a review of the constitutionality or legality of the judgments adopted by that body. This is due to the separation of powers and the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Tribunal to review the formal and/or substantial constitutionality of the laws enacted by the National Congress,”6 pursuant to the domestic legal framework existing at that time. 6. The ICourtHR found it “opportune to ratify the fundamental criteria” contained the important precedent of the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru,7 almost a decade ago, where, for the first time, it dealt with the issue of violations of rights that are part of due process of law in the impeachment of judges in light of the American Convention and the international standards. This is the second time in the history of the inter-American jurisdiction that it decides matters relating to impeachment, judicial independence, and due process. It is relevant to underscore that, in the Judgment the ICourtHR found it appropriate to follow the guidelines adopted on that occasion, which reflects a continuity in its case law, even though the judges who, today, are members of this inter-American court are completely different; and even though, the instant case has very important characteristics, particularly since they occurred in the above-mentioned context of the “collective termination of judges” of the three high courts, which has special relevance for the institutional aspect of judicial independence and its relationship with democracy. 7. Based on the foregoing consideration, I find it opportune, under Article 66(2) of the American Convention,8 to attach this opinion to the Judgment, in order to clarify the important implications that the matter has, in general, for judicial independence in Latin America; to state why I consider that the other judicial guarantees that were alleged should be examined, and to provide the reasons for my dissent from the seventh operative paragraph of the Judgment. Accordingly, I will examine the following issues: (i) the function of judicial independence under the constitutional and democratic rule of law (paras. 8-20); (ii) the importance of the context in the instant case (paras. 21-26); (iii) judicial independence in the Inter-American Court’s case law concerning the removal of judges (paras. 27-51); (iv) the different concepts of judicial independence: institutional and personal (paras. 52-61); (v) the institutional aspect of judicial independence in this case concerning the grounds for removing the former members obliges the State to acknowledge its international responsibility in this regard.” Para. 14 of the Judgment. 5 Para. 200 of the Judgment. 6 Para. 204 of the Judgment. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71. 7 Article 66(2) of the American Convention establishes: “If the judgment does not represent in whole or in part the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall be entitled to have his dissenting or separate opinion attached to the judgment.” See also Articles 24(3) of the Inter-American Court’s Statute and 32(1)(a), 65(2) and 67(4) of its Rules of Procedure. 8 2