5. Decision to remove from office 34. On December 12, 2003, by Resolution 134, the Senate decided to remove the alleged victims from office. In its resolution, the Senate stated the following: (…) That now at this stage, with respect to the first defendant, Dr. CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ GADEA, the motion to remove him from his position as justice of the Supreme Court, having been submitted to a vote, obtained a total of forty-four votes in favor, out of a total of fortyfour Senators present in the hall.That the motion to remove Dr. BONIFACIO RÍOS ÁVALOS from the position of justice of the Supreme Court, having been submitted to a vote, obtained forty-three votes in favor, out of a total of forty-four Senators present in the hall.(…) Resolves: 1. To declare Dr. CARLOS FERNÁNDEZ GADEA guilty of improper performance of his duties and consequently to remove him from his position as justice of the Supreme Court.2. To declare Dr. BONIFACIO RÍOS ÁVALOS guilty of improper performance of his duties and consequently to remove him from his position as justice of the Supreme Court .13 6. Constitutional challenges 35. Subsequently, the alleged victims filed actions challenging the constitutionality of Resolutions 122 and 134. They argued that their right of defense was violated because the time period allowed for preparing their defense was limited to two business days and the presentation of defense arguments could not exceed three hours. Likewise, they argued that the body that terminated them lacked independence and impartiality, which moreover violated the principle of judicial independence. 36. Between November 27, 2003, and September 15, 2004, Justices Antonio Fretes, Víctor Núñez Rodríguez, and Wildo Rienzi Galeano recused themselves and argued that they could not hear the case because they belonged to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court; the Chamber was therefore assembled with three interim justices.14 37. On December 30, 2009, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the constitutional challenges brought by the alleged victims and ordered, through Judgments 951 and 952, that the justices be reinstated. Judgment 951 ruled on the action of unconstitutionality brought by Bonifacio Ríos, while Judgment 952 ruled on the action of unconstitutionality brought by Carlos Fernández. Both judgments have the same content. 38. With respect to Resolution 122, the Constitutional Chamber indicated the following: (…)RESOLUTION NO. 122, here being contested, established a procedure for the impeachment trial of the Supreme Court Justices Carlos Fernández Gadea, Luis Lezcano Claude, and Bonifacio Ríos (ART. 1), a circumstance at odds with the constitutional provision that prohibits the establishment of a special prosecution law, that is, a law or legal regulation that contravention of the fiscal regulations for that year; 15. The Nissen Case, the judicial harassment of a prosecutor who was investigating corruption cases, in which the official was suspended with no respect for the constitutional guarantees of due process; 16. Complaints of administrative irregularities at the school of veterinary sciences, a corruption case that involved a classmate of Justice Ríos’ wife; 17. The Magu SRL case, in which Justice Ríos’ wife defended the company in a tax litigation case; 18. The criminal case against several officials of the Municipality of San Lázaro, in which the aforementioned attorney was defending the accused; 19. The complaint by Judge Alfredo Romero that he had been pressured by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in connection with the bribery case of former Congressman Julián Sosa; 20. Evidence of unlawful enrichment, such as Justice Ríos’ residence. 13 Annex 8. Senate Resolution by which the justices are removed from office. Annex to the State’s Response to the Petition of Bonifacio Ríos. 14 Annex 9. Statement of Recusal of Justices Antonio Fretes, Victor Nuñez and Wildo Rienzi Galeano. Annex to the State’s response to the petition. 9