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 this should occur, the person challenged would be afforded an opportunity to defend himself or herself. 70 The Commission would then submit a list of eligible candidates and the plenary would vote for the new judge in a public session. 71 61. Between 1998 and 2003 five judges were appointed using this cooptation system, namely: 72 Messrs. Gonzalo Zambrano Palacios 73, Ernesto Albán Gómez 74, Hernán Quevedo Terán 75, Arturo Donoso Castellón 76 and Milton Moreno Aguirre 77. 62. On September 22, 2003, the Supreme Court of Justice 78 decided to regulate the procedure for hearing complaints made against judges. 79 First it decided to appoint a Committee to conduct the proceeding, recognized a judge’s right to defend himself or herself and granted the Committee the authority to submit a report to the plenary of the Supreme Court, which could dismiss the judge with the vote of two-thirds of its members. 80 At the time of the facts of this case only one such proceeding had been brought against a judge for allegedly having exerted undue influence in the courts of justice. 81 Although the 70 Cf. Rules for the application of the cooptation system of September 30, 2003 (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, pages 2267 to 2070). 71 Cf. Rules for the application of the cooptation system of September 30, 2003 (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, pages 2269 and 2270). 72 In his statement Mr. Serrano Puig indicated that these five justices replaced judges who had died while in office, but he also mentioned that three judges who resigned were replaced by assistant judges, according to the Organic Law of the Judiciary. Those judges were Jorge Andrade Lara, Naum Clotary Salinas Montaño and Armando Serrano Puig. Affidavit rendered by Mr. Serrano Puig on January 31, 2013. (Merits file, volume III, page 1299), and Record and Summary Supreme Court of Justice regular session of November 15, 2000 (File of attachments to pleadings and motions, volume I, pages 2292 to 2294). 73 Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mr. Serrano Puig on January 31, 2013. (Merits file, volume III, page 1299). 74 Cf. Record and Summary of Supreme Court of Justice regular session of November 15, 2000 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2293). 75 Cf. Record and Summary of Supreme Court of Justice regular session of November 15, 2000 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2293). 76 Cf. Record and Summary of Supreme Court of Justice regular session of March 29, 2000 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2329). 77 Cf. Record and Summary of Supreme Court of Justice regular session of March 29, 2000 (File of attachments to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2329). 78 In this regard Article 13(1) of the Organic Law of the Judiciary of September 11, 1974 states that the Supreme Court has the power to “Appoint or remove 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” (File of attachments to the answer brief, volume I, page 3391). 79 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 22, 2003 (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2279). 80 Cf. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of September 22, 2003 (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2279). 81 In his statement Mr. Serrano Puig indicated that it was important to mention this case because this judge was publicly questioned and after several discussions within the Supreme Court was asked to resign. He added that “this case confirmed the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to hear disciplinary matters concerning its own members. Likewise, in order to deal with disciplinary problems, the Supreme Court of Justice issued regulations containing procedures for removing judges of the Supreme Court of Justice itself, which were published in the Official Record”. Cf. Affidavit rendered by Mr. Serrano Puig on January 31, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, page 1300). 21