The Commission acknowledges that the impeachment procedure before the Peruvian Congress is quite inclusive and provides for the possibility of being assisted by counsel, of submitting evidence and of being heard, as required by the Constitution. However, considering in particular the severity of the consequences of the impeachment, the Commission considers that in addition, even though the decision by Congress to impeach is inherently a political one, there should be judicial review of its conformity with the procedural (due process) and substantive (committal of a constitutional offence) requirements set out in the Constitution. Such review could take place either before formal impeachment proceedings are undertaken,70 or after. The ex-ante control would not raise issues of parliamentary privilege, but might present certain shortcomings: if it takes place at the very beginning, the court would assess the case before the facts and the full reasoning are provided, so without being able to fully assess the proportionality of the decision; if judicial control takes place just before the final vote in the parliament, it could postpone the final decision by Congress for a very long time. The choice between ex ante and ex post review would at any rate belong to the Peruvian authorities. Judicial review could be carried out by the Supreme Court or by the Constitutional Court (even though the judges of both these judicial bodies are themselves subject to impeachment under Article 99). In order for such an appeal to be meaningful, the decisions of Congress should be duly reasoned.