plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice would appoint a Committee made up of three judges to examine the documentation and present a report on the suitability of the nominees. Furthermore, it ordered that a list of nominees be published so that these could be challenged by civil society. If a challenge should be made, the person challenged would be afforded an opportunity to defend himself. 83 The Commission would then submit a list of eligible candidates and the plenary would vote for the new judge in a public session. 84 69. On September 22, 2003, the Supreme Court 85 decided to regulate the procedure to hear complaints made against judges. 86 First, it determined that a Commission would be appointed to conduct the procedure, recognized the judge’s right to defend himself and granted the Commission the power to present a report before the plenary of the Supreme Court and to decide by the two-thirds of the votes regarding the judge’s dismissal. 87 70. Thus, the National Congress flagrantly disregarded this constitutional and legal system for the lawful removal from office of the Supreme Court justices, in each and every one of its phases and requirements, as evidenced from the proven facts in this case. 71. Indeed, referring only to the culmination of that process by the National Congress, Resolution No. R-25-181, which dismissed the entire Supreme Court of Justice, contains the following ‘whereas´ clauses: That the current Constitution of the Republic, in force since August 10, 1998, provides in its 25th Transitory Provision that: ´The officials and members of agencies appointed by the National Congress and the Comptroller General of the State for a four-year period as of August 10, 1998, under the provisions of this Constitution, shall remain in those positions until January 2003’; That the current judges of the Supreme Court of Justice were appointed by the National Congress under the 16th Transitory Provision of the previous Constitution of the Republic, published in the supplement of the Official Record No. 142 of September 1, 1997, and so are currently under an expired mandate for not having resigned in January 2003; That the Constitution currently in force does not establish a procedure for electing the thirty-one judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, establishing only in Article 202, the proceeding for appointing a judge when a vacancy arises. Also, the Organic Law of the Judiciary, in Article 12 currently in effect, establishes the National Congress as the nominating authority for judges of the Supreme Court of Justice; That the State has the duty to guarantee the operation of the democratic system and the administration of justice free of corruption. 88 72. To subsequently declare: TO TERMINATE the functions of the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice and their respective deputy judges, who failed to resign from office in January 2003, as provided for in Transitory Provision 25 of the current Constitution; and, TO APPOINT in their place, the jurists named below, who shall take the oath of office before the Second Vice President of the National Congress, shall not 83 Cf. Rules for the exercise of the cooptation system of September 30, 2003. 84 Cf. Rules for the exercise of the cooptation system of September 30, 2003. 85 In this regard, Article 13(1) of the Organic Law of Judiciary of September 11, 1974 states that the Supreme Court has the power to: “Appoint or remove the judges of the Superior Courts, and to dismiss judges, officials and employees of the judiciary for gross misconduct or serious incompetence in the fulfillment of their duties or abandonment of the post for more than eight days” “The Supreme Court shall regulate the trial process.” 86 Cf. Resolution Supreme Court of Justice of September 22, 2003 (file of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page o 2279). 87 Cf. Resolution Supreme Court of Justice of September 22, 2003. 88 Resolution 181 of December 8, 2004. 17