“The presumed victims were not provided with guarantees of tenure and independence and, in general, guarantees of due process in their termination; because there were no grounds established by law for the removal from office of the presumed victims and because […] the State has not provided them with an effective and appropriate remedy to appeal their termination […]. Thus, the termination of the former members on November 24, 2004, which constitutes the factual framework of the case before the InterAmerican Court, entails international responsibility […] which is assumed with regard to the right to judicial guarantees, the principle of legality, and judicial protection established in Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” 13. Regarding the violation of Article 8 of the American Convention it indicated that: “The Constitutional Tribunal did not form part of the Judiciary and, therefore, by extension, the status of judge cannot be applied. However, both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Commission on Human Rights, and also the European Court of Human Rights have indicated that it should be understood that the principle of judicial independence applies to a juridical entity with the constitutional attributes of control of the Constitution, such as the Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador, with a series of guarantee such as adequate appointment procedures, an established term of office, and safeguards against external pressure.” 14. Regarding the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention in relation to the termination of the members of the Tribunal, it acknowledged its responsibility, “because there were no grounds established by law for the removal from office of the presumed victims.” It clarified that, “although it is true that the National Congress could make a constitutional and legal analysis, this should have included clear mechanisms to submit to review the tenure and the duration of the terms of the former members of the Constitutional Tribunal. The absence of legal certainty concerning the grounds for removing the former members obliges the State to acknowledge its international responsibility in this regard.” 15. Regarding the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, it indicated that “the State has not provided them with an effective and appropriate remedy,” taking into account that “the presumed victims filed remedies of amparo that were rejected systematically by the judges based on the decision of the Constitutional Court elected on November 25, 2004,” to replace the members of the Tribunal who had been removed. This new court “determined that, in order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary decision owing to an eventual and supposed violation of the Constitution, the only action established was the action on constitutionality, which must be filed before the Constitutional Court.” The State indicated that “[t]his analysis reveals that the State did not provide a simple, prompt, and effective legal remedy.” 16. Nevertheless, it asked that the Court “declare that Articles 23, 24, 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention have not been violated, because the content of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention relates to a general obligation that cannot be verified in a specific case, contrary to the rights that are recognized in the American Convention and that admit analysis in a determined case.” 17. The Commission “assesse[d] the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State.” However, it emphasized that “the State has not acknowledged the violation of Article 2 of the Convention,” and concluded that it “underst[ood] that the partial acknowledgement of responsibility [was] limited to one of the two components of this case; that is, decision R-25-160 issued by the National Congress on November 25, 2004. The Commission underst[ood] that the dispute subsisted with regard to the violations derived from the impeachment of the victims.” 7