be subject to fixed terms for the duration of their office, and shall be subject to termination on the grounds prescribed by the Constitution and by law: […] Within a period not exceeding fifteen days, the National Council of the Judiciary shall be restructured and shall submit, to the National Congress, shortlists of three names for the election of the Minister Prosecutor General of the Nation, the Superior Courts of Justice and the provincial prosecutors. This resolution shall enter into force immediately, regardless of its publication in the Official Record. 89 73. It should be noted that this resolution was approved with 52 votes in favor and 3 against. Immediately after adopting the resolution, and without it being included on the agenda, a motion for constitutional reform was presented so that Congress would regain its jurisdiction to impeach the Supreme Court of Justice. 90 This motion was approved by 34 votes in favor. 91 74. According to the proven facts, the judges found out about their dismissal in several ways: some through the press, others through television news broadcasts and others through rumors circulating in the Court. The dismissed Supreme Court justices refused to leave their offices, considering that the National Congress resolution had no “legal validity whatsoever.” Consequently, on December 9, 2004, the National Police proceeded to remove the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and some judges who accompanied him from the Palace of Justice. Also, other judges and employees were prevented from entering the building. 75. Once installed, the new Supreme Court of Justice adopted a number of decisions of major political importance to the dominant political force. 92 These decisions included the annulment of the proceedings against former Presidents Abdalá Bucaram and Gustavo Noboa, and against former Vice-president Alberto Dahik. 93 76. Thus, this case reveals the circumstances in which the dismissal of the Supreme Court justices was confirmed, undermining their tenure in office, in the context of external pressures, with effects on judicial independence in its institutional and personal aspects. The proven facts, which reveal a veritable political onslaught and an attack on the basic principles of a democratic State governed by the rule of law and upheld by the InterAmerican Human Rights System, highlight the need to define the limits imposed by this international system, not only regarding judicial independence in its personal aspect, but also in its institutional aspect, in favor of the entire group of 27 victims who comprised the Supreme Court of Justice and who were unlawfully dismissed by the National Congress. VI. THE LACK OF ANALYSIS OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY A) Lack of analysis of other judicial guarantees (especially those provided for in Article 8(2) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention) 89 Resolution 181 of December 8, 2004. 90 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004. 91 Cf. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004. 92 Cf. Report Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005. 93 Cf. Report Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005. 18