2004], which [was] causing serious national unrest […] so that it was essential to abide by the verdict of the citizens of Quito and of the Republic who reject[ed] the functioning of the actual Supreme Court of Justice.”169 Consequently, the President of the Republic decreed: Art. 2. Based on the express mandate and sovereign will of the Ecuadorian people, and in compliance with the duty of the State to recognize and guarantee the right to legal certainty embodied in art. 23(26) of the Constitution of the Republic, the judges of the actual Supreme Court of Justice, appointed by Resolution 25-181 of December 8, 2004, are declared to be terminated.170 113. The same Executive Decree declared a state of emergency in Quito.171 The following day, April 16, 2005, the President of the Republic issued Executive Decree No. 2754, in which he considered that “the cause of the internal unrest and disquiet in Quito arising from the crisis of the Supreme Court of Justice ha[d] been overcome” and, consequently, he declared “the end of the state of emergency.” 172 114. At the same time, on April 17, 2005, the National Congress annulled the resolution, of December 8, 2004, regarding the appointment of the new Supreme Court of Justice. 173 However, it did not order the reinstatement of the judges who had been removed from office.174 115. The foregoing increased the “wave of tension and violence which was becoming particularly intense in the capital,” and, consequently, on April 20, 2005, the National Congress declared that the President of the Republic had left office;175 implementing the constitutional succession mechanism, the Vice President, Alfredo Palacio, assumed the presidency.176 116. On April 26, 2005, the National Congress approved the amendment to the Law on the Organization of the Judiciary.177 The new Law established an ad hoc mechanism to administer the procedure of the qualification and appointment of the new judges and assistant judges of the Supreme Court of Justice.178 This ad hoc mechanism consisted of the creation of a Qualifications Committee in order “to compensate for the fact that the constitutional clause on the principle of co-optation cannot be applied because the body authorized to do this, namely, the Supreme Court of Justice, is non-existent.”179 169 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 94. 170 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 94. 171 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 95. 172 Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 95. 173 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1107). 174 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1107). 175 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1107). 176 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1107). 177 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome III, folio 1107). 178 Cf. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 525). 179 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (file of annexes to the report, tome II, folio 525). 37