constitutional functions. In the case of Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, the impeachment trial against him continued on counts 1, 2, and 4, as well as on counts 5, 7, and 14, concerning the Constitutional Court’s failure to meet procedural deadlines; usurpation of constitutional authorities expressly reserved for the legislative branch, seriously upsetting the balance of power; and a case in which the State was ordered to pay damages. 7. The petitioners stated that on December 12, 2003, the Senate issued Resolution No. 134, which resolved to declare the alleged victims guilty of the charges brought against them and therefore to remove them from their posts. The petitioners indicated that the resolution provides no reasoning and merely refers to alleged improper performance (mal desempeño) as grounds for impeachment. 8. The petitioners maintained that the alleged victims challenged the constitutionality of Resolutions No. 122 and 134 by which they were removed from their posts. They indicated that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled on both lawsuits on December 30, 2009, by means of Judgments 951 and 952, which declared the resolutions removing the alleged victims from office to be unconstitutional and ordered the justices reinstated. The petitioners noted that both the Supreme Court and the legislative branch failed to recognize Judgments 951 and 952. 9. The petitioners indicated that the same facts that were the subject of the alleged victims’ impeachment trial and that led to their removal from office formed the basis for criminal complaints brought against them by the National Congress. On November 1, 2005, the criminal court judge dismissed the complaints and found that the decisions for which the justices were impeached were the product of their authority to interpret the law and arose from their judicial convictions, based on the factual and legal circumstances. 10. The petitioners argued that the alleged victims were targets of discrimination, based on the fact that other justices who signed some of the decisions that constituted grounds for impeachment were not impeached but continued to serve as justices. 11. In terms of the law, the petitioners argued that there were violations of the right to a fair trial, the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws (principle of legality), equal protection, judicial protection, and political rights. 12. With respect to the right to a fair trial, the petitioners argued that the right to a competent, impartial authority was violated, as the Rules of Procedure did not exist prior to the proceedings initiated against the alleged victims but were issued precisely to bring them to trial. The petitioners added that the Rules of Procedure did not allow for recusal of the disciplinary authority and therefore its impartiality could not be challenged. 13. The petitioners also argued that the principle of presumption of innocence was violated, as the decision to remove the alleged victims from the bench was made before the proceedings began. They also indicated that the Rules of Procedure governing the impeachment trial prohibited recourse to a second judicial instance or some type of appeal. They added that the deadlines for presenting their defense were so restricted that the right to present an adequate defense was violated. 14. In terms of freedom from ex post facto laws (principle of legality), the petitioners argued that this right was violated because the process by which the alleged victims were removed from their posts was not substantiated by a previously established law but was based on Rules of Procedure. Moreover, they argued that no law existed that characterized an act as “improper performance of duties” and that therefore they were tried under a law that did not exist at the time of the events and that was approved simply to bring them to trial, in a manner tailored to their situation. 15. The petitioners argued that the right to judicial protection was violated because the alleged victims did not have effective recourse to appeal the decision that removed them from office, and the constitutional challenges they filed, though decided in their favor, were never carried out. 2