by the State has full legal effects pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure and has a significant symbolic value to ensure the non-repetition of similar acts. 21. In this regard, the Court underscores that the State partially acknowledged its responsibility in relation to Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention with regard to the termination of the members of the Tribunal on November 25, 2004. 22. Regarding the acknowledgement based on the violation of Article 9 of the Convention because the laws of Ecuador do not establish specific grounds for the termination of judges, the Court stresses that the State did not explain whether the termination was carried out as a punitive act, and this must be determined in order to establish whether Article 9 should be analyzed in this case. The acquiescence made does not establish clearly the elements of Article 9 of the Convention that have been violated, nor does it respond to several of the allegations presented by the Commission and the representatives in this regard (infra paras. 145 to 147); consequently, some of the disputes on this point remain. 23. In addition, the Court underscores that a dispute subsists regarding the presumed violations of the Convention that were not included in the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility; namely, those related to the violation of Articles 2, 23 and 24 of the American Convention concerning the termination of the former members of the Tribunal. Furthermore, the dispute persists with regard to the facts and violations alleged concerning the impeachments of the presumed victims on December 1 and 8, 2004. The dispute also persists regarding the possible reparations and costs. Consequently, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts that occurred, clarifies the scope of the violations that have been acknowledged, and decides the disputes that persist. The Court emphasizes that this determination contributes to making reparation to the victims, to avoiding a repetition of similar acts and, in sum, to achieving the objectives of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.11 V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 24. The State presented two preliminary objections. First, it argued that the Commission had violated the right of defense by holding a single hearing for cases No. 12,597: Miguel Camba Campos et al. (Members of the Constitutional Tribunal) and 12,600: Hugo Quintana Coello et al. (Justices of the Supreme Court), even though there is no provision of the Convention, or the Commission’s Statute or Rules of Procedure, that permits the joinder of hearings of more than one case. Second, the State argued the impossibility of complying with the recommendations made by the Commission in Merits Report 99/11 regarding the reinstatement of the presumed victims to the Judiciary, because, according to articles 198 and 275 of the Constitution, the members of the Constitutional Tribunal were not part of the Judiciary. It argued that, in addition to the supposed impossibility of complying with the Commission’s recommendation – made on the basis of an incorrect analysis – it had not 10 Cf. inter alia, Case of Kimel v. Argentina, paras. 23 to 25, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 28. 11 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, para. 24. 9