41. On November 26, 2004, the Congress appointed new principal and deputy members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. 14 42. The Commission observes that Article 95 the Constitution in force at the time of the events provided for the possibility of filing a writ of amparo. However, there were two resolutions that limited the possibility of filing this remedy in this particular case. On the one hand, the Supreme Court of Justice, on June 27, 2001, issued Resolution 01-027, in which it limited the scope of the amparo actions, and ruled that this type of remedy was not admissible and that it must be rejected when filed in connection with government acts. 15 In addition, on December 2, 2004, the new Constitutional Tribunal established after the removal of all its members by means of the aforementioned Resolution 25-160, at the request of the President of the Republic, 16 issued a resolution establishing that the only remedy to suspend the effects of Resolution 25-160 was the action of unconstitutionality, and "that any amparo writ filed in the courts of the land in connection with the aforementioned resolution, must be rejected in limine and declared inadmissible, because otherwise they would be deciding a case against the law, with the corresponding legal consequences"(...).17 43. Several of the dismissed members of the Constitutional Tribunal filed amparo actions, which were rejected by virtue of Resolution 25-160. 18 IV. ANALYSIS OF LAW A. Preliminary Issue 44. The Commission takes note of the State's argument that the Supreme Electoral Tribunal did not have jurisdictional functions and therefore cannot be assimilated to a judicial authority. 45. Regarding this argument, the IACHR emphasizes that regardless of the organic placement of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal in the institutional design of the State, said authority exercised materially jurisdictional functions, since under Article 209 of the Political Constitution of 1998, it had the power, among other issues, to hold accountable the parties, political movements, organizations and candidates in connection with their finances. By virtue of the foregoing, the IACHR considers that the alleged victim played a role as a justice operator, and therefore in subsequent sections it will apply the international standards derived from the principle of judicial independence vis-a-vis the removal of judicial authorities. B. Right to Judicial Guarantees and the Principle of Legality (Articles 8.1, 8.2, 19 9, 1.1 and 220 of the Convention) See decisions 25-170, 25-171, 25-172, 25, 173, 25-174, 25-175, 25-176 of November 26, 2004. Annex 7. R-O of July 27, 2001, R 01-027 of the Supreme Court of Justice. Annex E to the additional observations of the State dated September 18, 2014. 16 Report No 99/11. Case 12.597. Miguel Camba Campos and others. Members of the Constitutional Tribunal. July 22, 2011, para. 54; and Report No 65/11. Case 12.600. Hugo Quintana Coello and others. Justices of the Supreme Court of Justice. March 31, 2011, para. 46. 17 Annex 8. Resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal issued on December 2, 2004, published in R-O 477 on December 8, 2004. Annex E to the additional observations of the State dated September 18, 2014. 18 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para.101 et seq. 19 Article 8 of the American Convention establishes, so far as is relevant: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: (.,.) b. prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; (.,.) h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 20 Article 1.1 of the American Convention establishes: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. Article 2 of the American Convention establishes: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 14 15 8