80. In addition to the debate over the application of the transitory provision, during the session the congressmen presented arguments to justify the decision that would subsequently be taken against the Supreme Court justices, including: i) the alleged politicization of the Court 123; ii) alleged acts of corruption committed by that Court, and iii) the alleged unsuitability of the judges. 124 81. Some lawmakers who did not support the resolution stated that there were motives other than those expressed by congressmen who supported the dismissal of the Supreme Court judges. 125 A number of congressmen explained that the purpose of dismissing all the which, as mentioned, and as already stated by some columnists, by constitutionalists, by regular lawyers, from a simple reading […] is not applicable.” Similarly, Congressman Lucero Bolaños asserted that “Transitory Provision 25 of the Constitution had been invoked, trying to make [them] believe that this provision cover [ed] and also applie[d] to members of the judiciary”, which was not the case, because “Provision 25 concern[ed] officials appointed by Congress, for a four-year period, as of 1998 and the […] Supreme Court justices were not appointed by Congress on that date.” For his part, Congressman Posso Salgado stated that this provision was created for officials who completed their mandate in August, which was the same period of the presidential term. Since the Constitution had changed, Transitory Provision 25 extended the mandate of those officials for five months until the presidential changeover, which was in January. Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 247, 365 and 388). 123 At least four congressmen mentioned the alleged politicization of the Supreme Court. Indeed, Congressman Proaño Maya stated on that date that “the country ha[d] realized that the judges now hold the nation’s democratic power […] this trend has led to the destruction of institutions, the manipulation of the judiciary, the concentration of power, the replacement of justice with revenge; and the judges, instead of being real judges, are perverse servants of politicians’ interests or the interests of the powerful.” Therefore, he argued that it was necessary to put an end to the “judicalization of politics and [the] politicization of justice,” because people did “not want men in the country to be persecuted by hatred in the name of justice, they no longer [wanted] people in the country to be exiled with pain and tears, because political hatred motivated the judgments against [their] adversaries.” For his part Congressman Villacís Maldonado asked “who [would] defend a judiciary that meets with someone who thinks he owns the country.” Congressman Posso Salgado further asserted that “the Supreme Court of Justice […] has been […] hijacked for years by a political organization and a political chief in this country.” Congressman Erazo Reasco emphasized the “need to ensure that State institutions are not hijacked, do not act under the direction, the influence or the orders of the political parties or of a leader” and in particular, noted that “16 of the 31 [judges] of the Supreme Court [were members] of the Social Christian party.” Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 344, 348, 383, 388 and 407). 124 Approximately four congressmen mentioned alleged acts of corruption by judges or their unsuitability. Congressman Almeida Morán stated that “everyone knows that judgments […] are sold, that court rulings are […] bartered.” He added that “they want[ed] to establish a caste through cooptation. A caste that [would] continue to appoint its relatives in the future, to appoint the same group of people who cause harm.” He added that “in the coming days [he would] hand over the fortunes of all the members of the Supreme Court of Justice, which ha[d] changed enormously; of the country’s judges and prosecutors, who have changed enormously and become rich and new rich after three months.” Congressman Touma Bacilio stated that “[n]ow that a majority has formed to address the citizens’ outcry that justice does not exist in this country, out come the defenders of the State Constitution, out come the defenders of the judges [who] were never capable of denouncing the corruption of a Supreme Court judge, […] and have been accomplices and accessories to that justice that has been administered for 25 years […] and are now the defenders of the corrupt”. Similarly, Congressman Villacís Maldonado declared that “the Supreme Court [had] thieving judges, […] mafia judges, […] irresponsible judges.” Referring to the debate held, Congressman Villacís Maldonado, who proposed the wording of the resolution to dismiss the judges, declared that “the only difference [was] that some defend the corrupt and others ha[d] a position of fighting against corruption.” Record 24-001 of December 8, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, pages 351, 352, 355, 369, 384 and 446). 125 In this regard, Congressman Quispe Lozano said it was necessary to “rescue justice, but [they were] not going to take away the administration of justice from the hands of León Febres Cordero in order to hand it over to Abdalá Bucaram.” Similarly, Congressman Pazmiño Granizo declared that “they [were] killing the few institutions that exist[ed] in Ecuador, just so that Mr. Abdalá Bucaram Ortiz could survive politically [, that] everything [they had] seen in the National Congress [during those] last weeks [, involved] dividing up a great pie […] to save just one man.” Furthermore, Congressman Gonzalez Albornoz asked himself whether “they sincerely [believed] that anyone was interested in the civil chamber of the Court, […] the labor chamber [or] the administrative chamber […], the interest is in the Supreme Court of Justice, which controls the criminal chamber [and] Ecuadorians know why, […] it’s because of […] politicians who have problems with the law.” For his part, Congressman Viteri Jiménez argued that the intention was to have control over the Constitutional Court, because “[w]ithout the Constitutional Court [the President] cannot do anything […], having the Court […] he can do this, [he can] change the courts 28