of the American Convention; and even, of Article 8(1) on relation to Article 23(1)(c) and Article 1(1) of the Pact of San José, owing to the arbitrary termination of the permanence in the exercise of judicial functions, and the consequent infringement of judicial independence and the guarantee of impartiality. The Court also declared the State’s international responsibility for the violation of Article 25(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, because the victims were prevented from filing the “remedy of amparo,” owing to the decision issued by the new Constitutional Tribunal. VIII. THE FAILURE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC ANALYSIS OF THE RIGHTS ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE 8(2) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION CITED BY THE COMMISSION AND ALLEGED BY THE PARTIES 97. The ICourtHR failed to make a detailed examination of different judicial guarantees cited by the Inter-American Commission and alleged by the victims established in Article 8(2), considered that “[h]aving determined that the organ that carried out the termination was not competent, it is not necessary to analyze the other guarantees established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, because this determination signifies that the decision adopted by Congress was totally unacceptable.”127 98. I consider that the Inter-American Court could have analyzed the specific violations of other rights established in Article 8(2) of the American Convention, because the National Congress did have competence to conduct impeachment proceedings; in other words, the ICourtHR only considered the lack of competence with regard to the decision to terminate the judges on November 25, 2004, and not the competence of Congress with regard to the impeachment proceedings, regarding which specific violations were alleged of other judicial guarantees that were not examined in the Judgment. 99. In my opinion, the ICourtHR should have taken advantage of this opportunity to consolidate its case law concerning the due process of law applicable to the impeachment of judges. And this, because it has few opportunities to rule on the issue, and because of the institutional weakness in which the Judiciaries and constitutional courts of the region find themselves in the face of ambush by the political authorities, which, unfortunately, is not infrequent. As I have indicated previously (supra para. 67), nowadays, the Inter-American Court has an interpretive function erga omnes of the American Convention with exceeds the specific case, a situation of special importance bearing in mind the limited number of cases that it decides, owing to the design of the inter-American human rights system; a situation that differs greatly from that of the European system, especially following the entry into force of Protocol 11 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms under which the European Commission was eliminated and direct access was permitted to the European Court.128 Thus, the binding expansion of the “interpreted provision of the Convention”129 acquires particular relevance in inter-American justice, above and beyond the specific case (res interpretata), constituting one more element in the construction of a ius constitutionale commune americanum — or, at least 127 Para. 223 of the Judgment. According to its 2012 Annual Report, the European Court of Human Rights had 128,100 cases pending a decision. Cf. European Court of Human Rights. Annual Report 2012, Strasbourg, 2013, pp. 4, 6, 7 and 150. 128 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of March 20, 2013, para. 67 and ff. The ICourtHR has established that the “interpreted provision of the Convention” is binding in both the specific case (res judicata) and with general effects for the other States Parties to the American Convention (res interpretata). This is of particular importance for the “control of conformity with the Convention” that must be carried out by all the national authorities in keeping with their respective competences, and the corresponding procedural regulations, and is also useful for compliance with the decisions of the Inter-American Court. 129 26