26. For these reasons, I distanced myself from the highly respectable opinion of the majority and voted to summon the State so that, within a reasonable time period, it empowers the jurisdiction of its highest court to hear the case and decide on it, without prejudice to the fact that, meanwhile, the three Directors should be kept in office until the highest national instance rules on the issue of merit. II.2.b. Recent admissibility of the merits claim 27. Unfortunately, the fear I expressed on that occasion regarding the possible consequences of this Court's refusal to grant the provisional measures requested by the Commission was confirmed, apparently even to a greater extent than I could have imagined at the time, to the point that on September 7, 2021, the Commission declared as admissible the merits raised by the removed directors and complainants in terms that can be summarized as follows: 28. Pursuant to article 207 of the Constitution, the Council is made up of seven directors who perform their duties for a period of five years. Article 205 provides that they have the jurisdiction of the National Court and can only be removed by impeachment, in which case they must be replaced according to a new appointment process, without the Legislature being able to designate the replacements. The petitioners before the Commission were appointed for the period 2015-2020. 29. In September 2017, the executive announced that it would call for a popular consultation and the following month sent the respective project to the Constitutional Court, as provided in article 104 of the Constitution, in order for it to control the constitutionality of the Questions: In all cases, a prior ruling by the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the proposed questions will be required. 30. Among the proposals was that of enabling the removal of directors and the appointment of a Provisional Council, which could evaluate the appointments of officials made by the Council that it proposed to remove. On October 5, 2017, the Constitutional Court admitted the process and called a public hearing for November 29, but without waiting for the Court's decision, the executive issued two decrees and called the popular consultation that took place on February 4, 2018. The popular referendum, thus, took place without prior control by the Constitutional Court, and it was in these circumstances that the aforementioned provisional measure was requested before this Court. 31. The Commission now declares the claim admissible and states that, given the petitioners' allegations and after examining the factual and legal elements presented by the parties, the Commission considers that the petitioners' allegations regarding their dismissal as members of the Council for Citizen Participation and Social Control are not manifestly unfounded and require an examination of merits since the alleged facts, if confirmed as true, could characterize violations of articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 23 (Right to Participate in Government), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), to the detriment of Edwin Leonardo Jarrín, Tania Elizabeth Pauker Cueva and Sonia Gabriela Vera García, under the terms of this report. Consequently, it declared the petition admissible in relation to Articles 8, 23, 24 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 therein. 11 11 Report nº 195/21, Request 2377-17, Admissibility Report Edwin Leonardo Jarrin, Tania Elizabeth Pauker Cueva and Sonia Gabriela Vera García, Ecuador. OEA /Ser. L/V/II. Doc. 203, September 7, 2021. Original: Spanish. 5