repairing a violated right, an objective that was offered by the remedy of amparo,282 to which the presumed victims did not have access (supra para. 233). 235. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the action on unconstitutionality would have been heard by the recently installed Constitutional Tribunal, the composition of which did not provide sufficient guarantees of impartiality, especially when it is considered that the new members of the Constitutional Tribunal had a direct interest in an eventual unfavorable decision on any action or remedy relating to the terminations of the Supreme Court of Justice or of the previous Constitutional Tribunal, because a favorable decision would automatically signify the invalidity of the appointment of the new members of that Court. 236. Regarding the existence of a judicial remedy against decisions taken in the context of an impeachment proceeding conducted by the National Congress against members of the Constitutional Tribunal, in the case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, the Inter-American Court established the following, which is applicable in this case: “the proceedings that were held before Congress to remove the members of the Constitutional Court, which are subject to legal norms that must be observed precisely, may, on this basis, be the subject of a judicial action or remedy in relation to due process of law.”283 237. In the instant case, the presumed victims did not file remedies of amparo or of unconstitutionality against the resolution of the National Congress to dismiss them by means of the impeachment proceedings. However, according to the text of the decision adopted by the new Constitutional Tribunal, that decision applied not only to resolution No. R-25-160, but to any resolution adopted by the National Congress. In fact, in the said decision, the new Constitutional Tribunal decided “to establish that, in order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, including No. 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, for the supposed violation of the Constitution, in form or substance, the only action admissible was the action on unconstitutionality” (supra para. 99). Therefore, the decision of December 2, 2004, could be understood to mean that the only admissible remedy against any decision of the National Congress was the action on unconstitutionality, and thus a court that examined remedies of amparo could not review a decision of the legislature. 238. Taking into account the State’s acquiescence, as well as the fact that it has been proved that, in Ecuador, it was established by law that the remedy of amparo could be filed in cases such as this one, the Court considers that, in the specific circumstances of this case, it has been proved that the judges were prevented from using the remedy of amparo and that the action on unconstitutionality was not appropriate and effective to protect the rights of the members of the Constitutional Tribunal that had been violated. Therefore, the Court concludes that Article 25(1), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, was violated. 5. Equality before the law 282 Cf. Article 95 of the 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador: Anyone, on his own behalf, or as an accredited representative of a collectivity, may file an action for amparo before the organ of the Judiciary appointed by law. By this action, that shall be processed summarily and preferentially, the adoption of urgent measures shall be required designed to terminate, avoid the commission of, or rectify immediately, the consequences of any wrongful act or omission of a public authority that violates or may violate any right recognized in the Constitution or in an international treaty or convention in force, and that represents an imminent threat of causing serious harm. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (file of annexes to the answering brief, tome I, folio 3674). 283 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru, para. 94. 72