The Peruvian authorities argued that the abstract nature of this concept allows each case to be evaluated according to its context. Establishing a strict definition would limit the ability of Congress to exercise its oversight role. It is the Constitution itself the normative parameter to evaluate whether or not any of the high officials have committed an infraction against it. The Venice Commission recalls that it has previously acknowledged that “there is no uniform approach to the organisation of the system of judicial discipline and that practice varies greatly in different countries with regard to the choices between defining in rather general terms the grounds for the disciplinary liability of judges and providing an all-inclusive list of disciplinary violations”.66 However the Venice Commission favours specific and detailed description of grounds for disciplinary proceedings,67 whereas it recognised that, to a certain degree, it is unavoidable that a legislator uses open-ended formulas in order to ensure the necessary flexibility.68