of repairing a right that had been violated, an objective that the amparo remedy, 231 to which the alleged victims did not have access, did have. 193. It should also be stressed that the analysis of the remedy of unconstitutionality would have fallen to the newly installed Constitutional Tribunal, whose composition did not afford sufficient guarantees of impartiality, particularly considering that the new members of that Tribunal had a direct interest in an eventual unfavorable ruling on any action or remedy related to the dismissal of the Supreme Court of Justice or of the previous Constitutional Tribunal, given that a favorable decision would automatically invalidate the appointment of the new members of the Tribunal. 194. Bearing in mind the State’s acquiescence, as well as the facts proven, the Court considers that under the specific assumptions of this case it has been demonstrated that the judges were prevented from making use of the amparo remedy and that the unconstitutionality suit was neither appropriate nor effective to protect the violated rights of the Supreme Court judges. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 25(1), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 3. Equal protection 195. The Court points out that the State of Ecuador partially acknowledged the violation of Article 24 of the American Convention. 232 In particular, the State of Ecuador expressly declared the following: “Ecuador accepts [… the] right to equal protection before the law [of] Article 24 of the Convention given that the former judges did not have access to the action of constitutional amparo against the resolution of the National Congress unlike the rest of the population which has always had a broad right to action” (Emphasis added). 196. Thus, the State acknowledged the violation of Article 24 of the Convention, but solely and exclusively in relation to one of the two facts upon which the possible violation of Article 24 is based, that is, the denial of access to the action of constitutional amparo. On this point, the Court notes that the relevant issue has already been established upon concluding that preventing the judges of the Supreme Court from making use of the amparo remedy constituted a violation of the right to judicial protection. 197. Also, having determined that the judges’ dismissal was an arbitrary measure contrary to the American Convention, it is not appropriate to consider whether the notwithstanding that the administrative body may adopt the measures necessary to ensure observance of the constitutional provisions. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3346). In this regard, Mr. Quintana Coello stated that “given the lack of independence and impartiality shown by the Constitutional Tribunal […] we did not lodge any appeal, and also because the unconstitutionality suit serves to declare that the provision or administrative act is contrary to the Constitution, but it is not designed to repair human rights violations.” Affidavit rendered by Mr. Quintana Coello on May 14, 2007 (File of attachments to the Merits Report, volume I, page 120). 231 Cf. Article 95 of the 1998 Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador- Any person, acting in their own right or as the legitimate representative of a group, may bring an action of amparo before the judicial body designated by law. Such an action, which shall be processed in a preferential and summary manner, shall require the adoption of urgent measures designed to stop or prevent the commission, or immediately remedy the consequences of, an unlawful act or omission by a public authority, which violates or could violate any right enshrined in the Constitution or in an international treaty or agreement in force, and which, imminently, threatens to cause grave damage. Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of August 11, 1998 (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3323). 232 Article 24 of the Convention (Right to Equal Protection) stipulates that: All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law. 57