2
on March 1, 2012, the Commission reiterated that request for information, and to this date has not
received a reply from the Ecuadorian State.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Position of the petitioner

6.
The petitioner stated that a resolution of December 2, 1998, appointed him as a member
of Ecuador’s Supreme Electoral Tribunal for the period 1998-2003, and that subsequently, on January 9,
2003, the Congress reappointed him to that electoral body for the 2003-2007 term. He said that his
election and re-election had both been conducted in accordance with the Ecuadorian legal framework
then in force, particularly in keeping with the provisions of the amended text of Article 137 of the
Constitution of 1979 and Article 209 of the Constitution of 1998.
7.
He added that pursuant to the criterion in force at the time of his initial appointment as
a member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal the results of the elections of May 31, 1998, were taken into
account. He added that for his second term for the period 2003-2007, it was clear that the Congress had
considered and found acceptable his service as a member in the 1998-2003 period and compliance with
the Constitutional requirements. He said that on that basis he had been re-elected as a member on
January 9, 2003, along with four other magistrates.
8.
He said that more than one year after his re-election, on November 25, 2004, the
Congress had issued resolution R-25-160 ordering the “immediate termination” of all the members of the
Constitutional Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, and stating that their appointment was illegal
because it was not done in accordance with Article 209 of the Constitution of 1998. He said that this
resolution, which was published on December 20, 2004, read as follows:
2. To declare vacant the positions of the members and alternate members of the Supreme
Electoral Tribunal, because they were appointed without regard to the provisions of Article 209 of
the Constitution with respect to the form of their appointment; and to proceed to their
appointment in accordance with that constitutional norm, based on the election results of October
20, 2002.
The designees shall be sworn in by the President and/or any of the vice presidents of the Congress
and shall remain in their positions until legally replaced in January 2007.

9.
The petitioner alleged that by issuing that resolution R-25-160, the Congress acted
arbitrarily, placing political interests above the law, completely ignoring the legal institutions and the rule
of law, and violated basic principles of legal security, constitutional supremacy, due process, legality, the
right to defense, the obligation to justify its decisions, the right to hold public office, equality before the
law, and the guarantee of judicial protection, all of which are recognized in the Constitution of Ecuador;
and the rights recognized in Articles 8, 9, 23, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with
its Article 1.1 referring to the obligation to guarantee and respect the rights contained therein. He also
said that the State had violated Articles 1, 3, 4, and 7 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which
refer respectively to the right to democracy of the peoples of the Americas, respect for human rights,
basic freedoms, and the transparency of government activities, as well as Articles 16 and 43 of the OAS
Charter.

Select target paragraph3