3) Ramiro Rivera 20 and Luis Fernando Torres, congressmen of the National Congress of Ecuador in 2004, who testified on the alleged events that took place in the National Congress in connection with the dismissal of the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, how the alleged facts occurred, the convocation, the establishment of the parliamentary majority and the alleged reasons for the judges’ dismissal given by the congressmen during the sessions of Congress. D) Expert witness proposed by the representatives 1) Luis Pásara, university professor, who described the administration of justice in the region, referred to international standards of judicial independence, the scope of the rights involved in this case and the guarantees afforded to the judicial branch. E) Expert witnesses proposed by the State 1) Alejandra Cárdenas, university professor, who referred to political rights in Ecuador, the historical background, the issue of political rights in law and democracy, political rights and the Constitution, political rights since the return to democracy (19791998), and political rights in the Montecristi Constitution, as these relate to this case; 2) Daniel Kersffeld, coordinator of the UNASUR Governance Schools Network project, who discussed procedures for appointing judges in the UNASUR countries, general background, a brief account of justice issues in the UNASUR countries, common problems and conflicts and the institutions responsible for appointing judges in the UNASUR countries; 3) Miguel Ruiz, university professor, who referred to Ecuador’s political culture, the process from dictatorship to the recent democracy (1972-1979), the political parties (the right, the left and populism), social movements and the new political parties, and the alleged crisis in Ecuador’s political parties; 4) Antero Flores Araoz, former Speaker of the Peruvian Congress and university professor, who referred to the legal lessons learnt from cases involving the Republic of Peru before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, historical background (criteria for selecting cases), the discussion on fourth instance, legal assessments by Peruvian institutions and innovations in Peru’s Constitutional Law as well as some conclusions applicable to the region, in relation to this case; 5) Mónica Rodríguez, university professor, who explained the processes for appointing judges in Europe, general points, procedures in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Germany, institutions for appointing judges and the influence of European doctrine and theory in Latin America, as it relates to this case, and 6) Antonio Guerrero Carrasco and 7) Diego Zalamea León, university professors, who referred to the procedure for appointing judges of Ecuador’s National Court of Justice in 2011-2012, the legitimacy of the restructuring of the judiciary in Ecuador, the 20 The President of the Court summoned this witness to testify by means of an affidavit in the Order of December 20, 2012. However, the representatives reported that “[t]he witness […] Ramiro Rivera could not be contacted in order to render his statement,” for which reason they did not present said testimony. Brief of the representatives of February 1, 2013 (Merits file, volume IV, pages 1251 and 1252). 12