that other statements have repeatedly referred to removal from office. Under these circumstances, any defense put forth would be pointless.”7 3. Proceedings in the Chamber of Deputies 29. On November 18, 2003, the Chamber of Deputies brought articles of impeachment against Carlos Fernández Gadea, Luiz Lezcano Claude, and Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, in order to institute impeachment proceedings against them, and communicated this to the Senate. The resolution indicates the following: The Honorable Chamber of Deputies resolves (...) a) To bring articles of impeachment to the Honorable Senate against Supreme Court Justices Carlos Fernández Gadea, Luis Lezcano Claude, and Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos, for acts that constitute the grounds of improper performance and that, moreover, could constitute crimes committed in the exercise of the office and common crimes, under the provisions of Article 225 of the Constitution. b) To communicate this Resolution to the Honorable Senate for [the accused] to be submitted to the respective impeachment trial (...) in accordance with the procedure established for the effects prescribed in Article 225 of the Constitution, and if found guilty, removed from office and the impeachment records in due course forwarded to the ordinary justice system.8 30. The Commission observes that the resolution in question includes 20 charges against the alleged victims. In terms of what is relevant to this case, the Commission lists the following: (…) 1. Declaration that appointments of its own members are for life, violation of the recusal obligations established in the Civil Procedural Code. Agreements and Judgments 222 and 223, both issued by the Supreme Court on May 5, 2000, ruled in favor of, first, an action of unconstitutionality advanced by Justices FELIPE SANTIAGO PAREDES and JERÓNIMO IRALA BURGOS and, second, an action advanced by Dr. ENRIQUE SOSA ELIZECHE, both of which challenged Resolution No. 421, issued by the Senate on November 5, 1999; Decree No. 6131, issued by the Executive Branch on November 9, 1999; and Article 19 of Law No. 609/15. (…) The Supreme Court Justices who signed this judgment had a direct interest in the case because the resolution benefited them by keeping them in office until retirement age (…) (…) 2. Deviation from the constitutional procedure for confirming judges, interference with the functions of another judicial body. (….) Judges brought an action of unconstitutionality (…) requesting a finding of inapplicability regarding the rule requiring judges who aspire to be confirmed in their posts to appear again before the Council of the Judiciary (….). The Court, in its Agreement and Judgment No. 1033 of December 19, 2001, rejected the suit. However, in the resolution section it introduced an unusual decision that has no constitutional basis. Indeed, the ruling in question provides (…) that the Council of the Judiciary may not exclude from a shortlist of three candidates any Judge who presents him or herself for competition hoping to be confirmed to the post (…). In no article of the Constitution is it established that the Council of the Judiciary must include on a candidate shortlist judges who present themselves for confirmation. Moreover, the Constitution established a procedure that explicitly requires judges to compete for their posts at least two more times after they are appointed, to secure tenure in office. (…) 4. Interference in the Chamber of Deputies’ exercise of its constitutional functions. Annex 4. Resignation of Justice Raúl Sapena Brugada. Annex to the Initial Petition of Bonifacio Ríos of November 9, 2003/ Annex XX. Resignation of Justice Jerónimo Irala Burgos. Annex to the Initial Petition of Bonifacio Ríos of November 9, 2003. 8 Annex 6. Resolution No. 134 of the Chamber of Deputies bringing articles of impeachment against the justices. Annex to the State’s written observations of September 22, 2010. 7 5