In the first place, it should be based on clear grounds of serious disciplinary offences that are clearly, restrictively and exhaustively set out in the law.63 The Commission considers that the notion of “violation of the constitution” on which the juicio politico is based is extremely vague, and as such could be interpreted in a very subjective manner. It may be interpreted in a non-predictable manner using generally worded arguments such as ‘unreasonable’, ‘illegal’, ‘unconstitutional’ not being explained in more detail; or the political reasons used by considering only one of the applicable constitutional or legal principles without due consideration of all the applicable principles. Furthermore, even if the impeachment may be based on a violation of constitutional principles by the JNE member, such legal ground can relate to the work of the JNE member only to a small extent. The Commission delegation during its exchanges of views in Lima failed to obtain a list of examples of such so-called constitutional offences. There is no criminal offence of “violation of the constitution”. In the absence of clear grounds for the constitutional accusation, the merits of the accusation, hence the seriousness of the offence, will only depend on the majority within Congress supporting it (the impeachment requires a two-thirds majority).64 The Commission notes that the Inter-American Commission, in its 2023 report on the human rights situation of Peru, recommended to “refrain from adopting constitutional or legal reforms which weaken the autonomy and independence of the National electoral system or of the judiciary” and to “define the types of constitutional accusations […] in a manner that defines with clear and objective criteria the behaviours that may be sanctioned and the relevant consequences.”65