23. The petitioner stresses the fact that even though his defense showed that all the charges in the indictment were false, the Senate chose to remove those justices who had thus far refused to resign. And so, on December 12, 2003, the Senate passed Resolution No. 134 –which is in this petition’s case file with the Commission- in which it resolved to find “Dr. Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos guilty of poor performance and to therefore remove him from his position of justice on the Supreme Court.” According to the petitioner, that resolution would have no force of law because, although it contains votes, it is without legal foundation or reasoning. He points out that the resolution does not explain what he did that constituted poor performance and does not list the charges of which he was convicted and for which he was removed from his seat on the bench. The petitioner claims that the impeachment proceeding was not a trial but a travesty. 24. The petitioner filed an action challenging the constitutionality of the Senate resolution on December 26, 2003. According to the petitioner, the constitutionality challenge against the Senate resolution met with the same fate as the action filed to challenge the constitutionality of the Resolution establishing the Rules of Procedure for the impeachment trial, which was that the Court to rule on this action has not yet been established. The petitioner is therefore alleging an unwarranted delay on the grounds that under Paraguay’s procedural laws, when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of a law or regulation established by any branch of government, the Attorney General of the Nation will have eighteen days to study the action filed and the Court will decide the matter within the next thirty days. Thus, the petitioner argues, the proceedings on his constitutionality challenge should have been completed within 48 working days. However, as of the date of this report, the Court has yet to issue any ruling on his challenge. 25. The petitioner adds that background information related to the charges filed to begin impeachment proceedings against him was sent to the criminal justice to launch the necessary investigations. As the case file shows, on November 1, 2005, the criminal court judge dismissed the complaint filed concerning the 20 counts against the justices on the Supreme Court. The petitioner explains that the investigation lasted almost two years, and concluded that the charges did not constitute punishable offenses or common crimes. According to the petitioner, this demonstrates that there were never any grounds or bases for the impeachment trial. The petitioner adds that when delivering the decision dismissing the complaint, the criminal court judge argued that: “the decisions for which the former justices of the Supreme Court were impeached were the product of their authority to interpret the law as judges hearing the cases submitted to them; their respective positions, embodied in their rulings, are the product of their juridical conviction, based on the facts and the law spelled out in their arguments.” 26. The petitioner contends that both he and his family have been the target of constant harassment, threat, extortion, and blackmail attempts delivered via the press and on a face-to-face basis at his home. The petitioner names the Senators who allegedly visited him on November 5, 2003, to announce that the pact had already been made and to convince him to resign, even going so far as to offer him positions in the government or embassies, by mutual agreement. He adds that he received death threats repeatedly and his wife was harassed in the practice of her profession. He reports that following his impeachment trial, the threats to members of his family became worse, to the point that he had to report these episodes to the public prosecutor’s office. 27. The petitioner contends that the removal of the justices on the Supreme Court destroyed the independence of the judicial branch and led to violation of articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(f) (right to a fair trial), 23(1)(c) (right to participate in government), 11 (the right to have his honor protected and dignity recognized), 24 (right to equal