did not establish any procedure to review that the resolution, based on the proceeding or on the substance, did not violate rights; de facto, because there was no other body before which to file an appeal against the resolution.” 8. Arguments on the principle of legality 145. The Commission argued that “the imposing of a de facto sanction, without legal grounds, resulted in the violation of the principle of legality.” Regarding the termination of the judges, it argued that: (i) “the Constitution and the law established expressly that [the] mandate [of the judges] was four years, and the only way to remove them established in the Constitution was by impeachment”; (ii) “in a difficult political context of tension among the different branches of government, Congress created an ad hoc mechanism not provided for in the Constitution or by law to proceed to terminate all the members of the Constitutional Tribunal based on the argument that they had been elected illegally in 2003 and that it was necessary to correct that illegality,” and (iii) “due to the creation of an ad hoc mechanism not provided for by law to determine the termination of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal, […] Ecuador violated the right recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention.” In addition, the Commission added that “it is not possible to understand clearly how the resolution to terminate the members of the Constitutional Tribunal […] could have had as its objective to rectify the illegality of their appointment,” “considering the time that had elapsed and the lack of other actions designed to question or determine the application of this voting system.” 146. Regarding the impeachments, the Commission referred to the expression “constitutional or statutory infractions” and argued that “this formulation of the grounds for removal does not offer sufficient standards of determination, and that with a view to safeguarding the principle of judicial independence these grounds must be described with the greatest possible clarity. In this regard, the lack of certainty with regard to the grounds for removal of the judges, in addition to raising doubts as to the independence of the judiciary, may give rise to arbitrary actions of abuse of authority with direct repercussions on the rights to due process and to legality.” 147. The representatives argued that the State had “violated Article 9 of the Convention by not establishing by law the causes for the removal of a judge and by prosecuting them on December 1 on grounds that were expressly prohibited by the Constitution at the time. The judges enjoyed immunity based on their rulings in their decisions.” 148. In relation to the termination of the judges, during the public hearing, the State acknowledged that it had not had “grounds established by law to remove the presumed victims from their functions.” It indicated that, regarding the termination, although “the National Congress could make a legal and constitutional analysis, this should have contained clear mechanisms to review the duration and stability of the positions of the former members of the Constitutional Tribunal”. 149. Regarding the impeachment proceedings, the State alleged that the arguments of the Commission and of the representatives “essentially ignore the importance of political control for the exercise of healthy democracy,” given “the juridical nature of political control and its characteristics,” and since “there is no legal definition of the facts that corresponds to the right violated.” 44