40. On January 2, 2010, in response to the earlier decisions, the Congress approved Resolution No. 1, rejecting the content of the ruling in the following terms: Article 1.- The authority to try the officials cited in Article 225 of the Constitution by means of an impeachment trial is a sphere of competence that belongs exclusively and solely to the National Congress; and the procedure to be used to that effect may only be determined by this branch of government. Therefore, the resolutions adopted as a result are not subject to judicial review. (…) Article 3.- Forcefully repudiate the content of the December 30, 2009, Agreements and Judgments 951 and 952, respectively, handed down by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, which seeks to declare unconstitutional the removal from office through an impeachment trial of the former Supreme Court Justices Bonifacio Ríos Ávalos and Carlos Fernández Gadea, resolved by the Honorable Senate under Resolution No. 134 of December 12, 2003. (…) Article 5.- Caution the Supreme Court Justices, the Council of the Judiciary, the Jury for the Prosecution of Judges, and the Executive Branch that accepting the validity of the judgment shall incur grounds for impeachment proceedings, in addition to incurring criminal liability for acting as accomplices of the signers of the decision in question.17 41. On January 5, 2010, the Supreme Court issued Resolution No. 2382 declaring Judgments 951 and 952 to be invalid and suspended the judges who issued the resolutions. The Supreme Court indicated the following: In these decisions, the intervening Judges did not observe the legal order of the Republic, and they violated cardinal principles of the national judicial system, as both our Constitution and the Civil Procedural Code categorically state that a judgment of unconstitutionality always includes a pronouncement that is exhausted only and exclusively with the declaration of unconstitutionality. (…) given the significance of the effects of decisions made by judges in the Judiciary that were issued in opposition to the constitution and the legal framework applicable to these matters, this highest court finds it necessary to declare that what was resolved in Agreements and Judgments 951/2009 and 952/2009, issued by the members of the Court of Accounts of this body’s Constitutional Chamber, lack all legal validity, within the scope provided in Article 137 of the National Constitution. Moreover, for the reasons explained above, it is incumbent to suspend Judges Juan Francisco Recalde Burgos, Meneleo Insfrán Riveros, and Florencio Pedro Almada Álvarez from their duties while the case proceeds through the Jury for the Prosecution of Judges.18 42. The Commission notes that Justice Antonio Fretes, who recused himself from hearing the case before the Constitutional Chamber, signed the resolution.19 C. Criminal proceeding Annex 11. Congressional Resolution No. 1 of January 2, 2010. Annex to the State’s written observations of January 25, 2010. Annex 12. Supreme Court Resolution No. 2382 of January 5, 2010. Annex to the January 16, 2010, written observations of Carlos Fernández. 19 Annex 13. Statement of Recusal of Antonio Fretes, para, 41. Annex to the State’s response to the petition. 17 18 11