designed to protect human rights but to challenge provisions that contradict the Constitution. Lastly, they submit that it is not capable of providing redress for human rights violations, but only of terminating the effects of a legal norm. The Constitution does not empower the Constitutional Tribunal to order any reparation measures in actions for unconstitutionality. With respect to an administrative proceeding, they say that, too, is an unsuitable remedy because the decision in the last instance would fall to the Supreme Court of Justice which was not independent or impartial. 14. According to the petitioners, the decision that denied the possibility of filing for a writ of amparo violated Article 25 of the American Convention. Furthermore, they argue that the decision was not issued by a competent judge in a procedure previously established by law, and that basic due-process guarantees were not observed. In this connection, they say that the justices were not notified of or charged with any legal violation. They also say that they were not given the opportunity to mount a defense since the motion was presented in a special session at 23:05 and passed at 23:45 later the same day. At the same time they say that the fact that the dismissal procedure was not previously established constitutes a breach of Article 9 of the American Convention. 15. They also allege violation of Article 23 of the American Convention because the justices were unlawfully and abruptly prevented from exercising their right to perform the public services for which they appointed on an indefinite basis in October 1997. Finally, they allege, violation of Article 24 of the Convention on the grounds that the justices were treated in a discriminatory manner based on the government’s perception of their political affiliations. Four of the dismissed justices, reportedly sympathetic to the government, were reappointed. 16. According to the petitioners, on April 17, 2005, the National Congress annulled the resolution whereby the de facto Supreme Court was appointed because they considered it at odds with the constitutional framework. However, the justices who were dismissed in November 2004 were never reinstated. B. The State 17. The State argues that on December 8, 2004, the Ecuadorian Congress, in exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers, decided to terminate all the members of the Supreme Court. In so doing, the Congress interpreted transitory provision 25 of the Constitution and determined that the tenure of the members of the Supreme Court had expired in January 2003.4 According to the State, as of December 2004 the justices were exercising their duties under an expired mandate because they had been appointed in 1997, before the entry into force of the constitutional provision of 1998 that introduced indefinite tenure for the office. 5 It further argues that the Congress acted within its authority in adopting resolution R-25-181, and any interpretation of Ecuador’s constitutional precepts by that branch of government is not open to review in an international proceeding. 18. The State also asserts that the petitioners failed to comply with Article 46 (1) of the American Convention because they did not attempt any remedy; and that in the instant case it cannot be concluded in abstract and in the absence of any credible evidence that the decisions adopted in the future by a domestic tribunal will be biased and disregard the rules of due process. 4 All officials and representatives of agencies appointed by the National Congress as well as the Comptroller General appointed, since August 10, 1998 for a period of four years, by virtue of the provisions contained in this Constitution, shall remain in office until January 2003. 5 Transitory Provision Fifteen of the Reform of the 1979 Constitution.- In order to enable the immediate application of the principles [of cooptation and indefinite tenure] approved in the referendum of May 25, 1997, let the periods for which the present members of the Supreme Court of Justice were appointed be declared terminated. However, said members shall remain in office until they are replaced in the manner prescribed in the following transitory provision [Sixteen]. 5