since December 28, 1977, and recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on July 24, 1984. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Partial acknowledgment of responsibility by the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 13. In the course of the public hearing the State announced the following: “Ecuador partially acknowledges [responsibility...] only [...] in relation to certain rights […]. One, judicial guarantees, Article 8 of the American Convention, inasmuch as [the judges] were dismissed from their positions without being afforded an opportunity to appear before the National Congress. Two, the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws), Article 9 of the American Convention, inasmuch as the law contained no specific grounds for removing the judges from office, and that the National Congress’s resolution could have been understood as an ad-hoc proceeding of a punitive nature. Three, the right to a simple, prompt and effective remedy, Article 25 of the Convention, inasmuch as the State did not provide the former judges with an effective legal remedy against the National Congress’s Resolution of 2004 in order to determine whether it constituted a human rights violation. Four, the right to equal protection before the law, Article 24 of the Convention, inasmuch as the former judges did not have access to the action of constitutional amparo against the National Congress’s resolution, unlike the rest of the population which has always had a broad right to such action. […] [T]he Ecuadorian State has specifically accepted the facts that it considers violate the rights of the former judges [...] and therefore partially acknowledges the alleged violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 9, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights in the context of the facts mentioned, discounting the fact that the rights which it accepts have been violated, could stem from other circumstances or facts of a temporary nature different from this case. [T]he dismissal of the judges is not in dispute [… nor is the fact that] the rules of due process were violated in the dismissal of the judges, […] the principle of legality, […] that they were not afforded an effective remedy to assert their rights and […] that they received a discriminatory treatment as regards being afforded an opportunity to present actions of amparo, to which other persons within the State had access.” 14. The Commission considered that “the State’s acknowledgement constitute[d] a positive contribution to this process, to the victims’ rights and, in general, to the application of human rights in the region.” However, it pointed out that “the manner in which the State described its acknowledgement was ambiguous regarding the specific facts that it recognizes as violations under those Articles.” This, because the State considered that the violation of Article 8 of the Convention was limited “to the victims’ inability to appear at the session where they were dismissed from office.” However, “it made no mention of one of the main violations: the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial authority.” The Commission added that there is still a dispute over reparations. Furthermore, it stated that it understood that “the acknowledgement of international responsibility […] by its very nature, and by including the violation of Article 25 of the Convention, impli[ed] the withdrawal of the preliminary objections filed.” 15. The representatives, for their part, said they “welcome[ed] the acquiescence of the State.” However, they argued that this acquiescence did not allow for an examination of “the scope of the facts and the rights recognized as having been violated by the State.” 16. In this regard, the Court required the State to determine in its final arguments “which specific facts ha[d] caused the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in the 7