PRE, former President Abdalá Bucaram, was seeking the annulment of several criminal proceedings before the Supreme Court, 86 as a result of which a warrant had been issued for his arrest, prompting him to flee to Panama. 87 65. On November 23, 2004, President Lucio Gutiérrez announced the government’s intention to promote, through Congress, the reorganization of the Constitutional Tribunal, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Justice. 88 On November 25, 2004 the National Congress adopted a resolution declaring that the full and alternate members of the Constitutional Tribunal had been illegally appointed in 2003 and terminating the appointments of all its full and alternate members, 89 some of whom were subsequently impeached by Congress. In Resolution No. R-25-160 Congress resolved to “declare that the full judges of the Constitutional Tribunal and their deputies were appointed illegally and to entitled “How the fall of the Supreme Court of Justice was engineered” (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 569). Press report in the daily “Hoy” entitled “New majority dismisses members of TSE and of TC” of November 26, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 845). Press reports in “El Comercio” newspaper entitled “Between an interim and another new Court” of December 13, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 908), “Majority without a counterweight?” of January 8, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 688), and Press communiqué issued by “Human Rights Watch” entitled “Ecuador Supreme Court purged” of December 17, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 726). 86 On this point, the report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur stated that “the new Supreme Court of Justice –considered “de facto” by large sectors of Ecuadorian society– adopted a decision of enormous political significance: it annulled the proceedings against two former Presidents, Abdalá Bucaram and Gustavo Noboa, and against former Vice-president, Alberto Dahik.” Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers of August 31, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 524). Likewise, witness Ayala Mora mentioned in his statement that “Ramón Rodríguez Noboa, who was appointed President (of the Supreme Court), was frank enough to admit in an interview on national television that he had accepted the appointment at the kind suggestion of President Gutiérrez. Faced with such public evidence of government participation, he had to resign and was replaced by his deputy, Dr. Gustavo Castro, a figure very close to Abdalá Bucaram, who was quickly acquitted of the charges against him, and returned to the country amid a spectacular media event.” Affidavit rendered by witness Ayala Mora on January 31, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, page 1290). The witness Torres stated that “the Supreme Court of Justice was dismissed against express norms, a new Court was appointed and days later the committal orders against prominent politicians were revoked.” Affidavit rendered by the witness Torres Torres (Merits file, volume III, page 1334), and Affidavit rendered by expert witness Ruiz Acosta on January 29, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, page 1220). 87 In this regard the expert witness Ruiz Acosta explained that the new Court “which replaced the previous Court decided to annul the lawsuits against Bucaram, which allowed him to return to the country on April 2, 2005.” Affidavit rendered by expert witness Ruiz Acosta on January 29, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, page 1221); Affidavit rendered by expert witness Pásara (Merits file, volume III, pages 1259, 1274 and 1275); Statement of witness Ayala Mora (Merits file, volume III, pages 1286 and 1289). Affidavit rendered by Mr. Alban Gómez (File of attachments to brief of pleadings and motions, volume I, page 2357); Press reports in “El Comercio” newspaper entitled “Bucaram has greater influence on Gutiérrez”, December 25, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 675), “Bucaram’s power is transmitted by telephone,” December 30, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 676), “United States is concerned about juridical instability and the Court” January 8, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 686), “Majority without counterweight?” January 8, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 688); Press reports in the daily newspaper “Hoy” entitled “Los Angeles Times: Commentary,” January 7, 2005 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, page 714), and “Sicouret his anti-PSC majorities” December 19, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 548). 88 In this regard, the expert witness Ruiz Acosta stated that “in mid-2004, […] Gutiérrez established contacts with the self-exiled Bucaram, leader of the PRE, the third political force in Congress and political enemy of Febres Cordero and the PSC. A few months later, with the support of the PRE and the PRIAN (the party of the banana multimillionaire Alvaro Noboa), Gutiérrez volume the decision to push through Congress, a radical restructuring of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal and the replacement of the [Supreme Court of Justice]permeated by the influence of Febres Cordero.” Affidavit rendered by expert witness Ruiz Acosta on January 29, 2013 (Merits file, volume III, page 1209), and Press report in the daily “Hoy”, entitled “Government bloc after the TC” of November 24, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume II, page 545). 89 Cf. National Congress Resolution issued on November 25, 2004 (File of attachments to the report, volume III, pages 941 a 942). 23