171. The Court stresses that the 1998 Constitution protected judicial independence as an institutional aspect of the judiciary (supra para. 55). Indeed, Article 199 stated that “the organs of the judiciary shall exercise their duties and powers independently. No function of the State shall interfere in matters pertaining to these.” Likewise, the Constitution stipulated that “judges shall exercise their jurisdictional authority independently, even from other judicial bodies.” 172. This constitutional provision, as well as the popular referendum held in Ecuador on this matter (supra para. 55), which decided that Congress should no longer have the authority to impeach the Supreme Court justices, demonstrated an interest in safeguarding, in the best way possible, the separation of powers and judicial independence. 173. In this case, the Court considers it necessary to analyze the context in which the judges’ dismissal from office occurred, since this is useful in understanding the reasons or motives that prompted that decision. Taking into account the motive or purpose of a particular action by state authorities is relevant to the legal analysis of a case, inasmuch as a motivation or purpose that differs from the provision granting powers to the state authorities to act, may demonstrate whether the action may be considered arbitrary. 212 Accordingly, the Court begins from the premise that the actions of state authorities are presumed to be conducted according to law. For this reason, an irregular action by the state authorities must be proven, in order to rebut that presumption of good faith. 213 174. From the facts established in Chapter VII of this Judgment, the Court emphasizes that these indicate that at the time when the judges were dismissed, Ecuador was going through a period of political instability, stemming from the removal of several Presidents and the amendment, on several occasions, of the Constitution in response to the political crisis. Moreover, the alliance between the government and the political party led by former President Bucaram suggests possible motives or purposes for wishing to remove the Supreme Court justices, particularly, the interest in annulling the criminal proceedings conducted by the Supreme Court against former President Bucaram. 175. Furthermore, the Court points out that within a period of 14 days, not only was Supreme Court dismissed, but also the Electoral Tribunal and the Constitutional Tribunal, something that constitutes a totally unacceptable and untimely action. All these facts undermine judicial independence. This allows the Court to conclude, at least, that at that time there was a climate of institutional instability in Ecuador which affected important 212 In this regard, the European Court took into account the real purpose or motive shown by the state authorities in exercising their duties, to determine whether or not there was a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. For example, in the Case Gusinskiy v. Russia, the European Court considered that the victim’s detention, authorized by Article 5(1) (c) of the European Convention, was applied not only to make him appear before the competent judicial authority, considering that there were reasonable indications that a crime had been committed, but also to force him to sell his company to the State. In the Case Cebotari v. Moldavia the Court ruled that Article 18 of the European Convention was violated given that the government failed to convince the Court that there was reasonable suspicion to consider that the petitioner had committed a crime. The Court concluded that the true reason for the petitioner’s arrest and criminal trial was to pressure him and thereby prevent his company “Offer Plus” from filing suit before the Court. Finally, in the Case Lutsenko v. Ukraine the European Court ruled that the deprivation of liberty of the petitioner, authorized by Article 5.1 (c), was applied not only to make him appear before the competent court, because there was reasonable evidence that he had committed a crime, but also for other reasons related to the Public Prosecutor’s attempt to accuse the petitioner for publicly expressing his opposition to the charges against him. Cf. ECHR, Case of Gusinskiy v. Russia, Judgment May 19, 2004, paras. 71 to 78; Case Cebotari v. Moldavia, Judgment of February 13, 2008, paras. 46 to 53, and Case Lutsenko v. Ukraine, Judgment of July 3, 2012, paras. 100 to 110. 213 The Inter-American Court has established that “direct evidence, whether testimonial or documentary, is not the only type of evidence that may be legitimately considered in reaching a decision. Circumstantial evidence, indicia and presumptions may be considered, so long as they lead to conclusions consistent with the facts.” Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 130. 51